MS should control PC configuration?

Post #29,209 by warmachine 2/21/02 10:54:20 AM Reply	MS should control PC configuration? ...expecting Microsoft to let third parties replace it[IE component in Windows] is also totally absurd. Why? You state that IE is removable and replaceable and that OEMs should be allowed to add third party products, provided they comply with a minimum standard. In the case of an IE replacement, that standard would be the same component interface that the IE and shell development teams have declared to each other. If an IE replacement correctly complied with that, there would be no problem. If an OEM should be allowed to add value with third party products, what's wrong with adding value by replacing replacable components. If a replacement didn't work, it wouldn't be Microsoft's problem; the OEM is expected to support their PCs. Or is your argument that MS should be allowed to control the configuration provided to end-users? If so, that stifles innovation or market adaption by the OEMs themselves. For example, suppose there's a locked-down browser that blocks children from seeing banned sites. An OEM could market a child-locked PC to concerned parents, if they were allowed to replace IE. Or some software company might develop a browser that supports micro-payments of pay-per-view content and sell an integrated version to OEMs. A PC is a generic, adaptable machine and is in a competitive market. Choice from a variety of packages would be a good thing. Why should MS be allowed to control a product that they don't supply? Microsoft Outlook - one, big, macro virus portal.
Post #29,231 by Squidley 2/21/02 12:06:02 PM Reply	Re: MS should control PC configuration? If an OEM should be allowed to add value with third party products, what's wrong with adding value by replacing replacable components. The reasons are practical. IE is a nontrivial component. Many of the interfaces it exposes are nontrivial. There's a ton of other nontrivial stuff in Windows that reuses various IE components. Microsoft has poured tons of time and money into testing all that stuff with IE. And here's the key point. Microsoft also knows that no two independent implementations of a nontrivial software specification will ever be 100% compatible. If you don't believe that last part, you've probably never done hard time trying to get a nontrivial Java product to work correctly under several different vendors' JVMs, or taken a good long look at what GNU autoconf does. The bottom line is that if nobody ever tested, say, the Windows file manager on top of someone else's HTML component, there's a good chance it won't work correctly in that configuration. There's a chance it will, of course, but it's a risk that neither Microsoft nor any other software developer in the same situation has any reason to take. And I believe it is unfair and unreasonable to require them to take it. Your thoughts? If a replacement didn't work, it wouldn't be Microsoft's problem; the OEM is expected to support their PCs. It's still too risky for Microsoft. Think about it. If a ton of basic Windows stuff doesn't work\ufffd- we're talking about the desktop, the file manager, the administration console, the help system (!), etc.\ufffd- who do you think the user will blame? Whose brand do you think the user will lose confidence in? I realize that many people here will scoff at the notion of confidence in the Microsoft brand, but let's try to be serious here. Do you think that attitude applies to the majority of Microsoft's user base? Heck, forget Microsoft and look around. How many automobile manufacturers give dealers the freedom to modify cars any which way? Don't you think there are valid reasons for that? Even if a vendor has had problems with brand confidence in the past, do you think they should be required, for any reason, to abandon practices designed to protect it? Or is your argument that MS should be allowed to control the configuration provided to end-users? No, that's not my argument at all.
Post #29,237 by boxley 2/21/02 12:22:13 PM Reply	you are absolutely right Since Microsoft demanded all 3rd party software to have hooks directly into IE or lose MS branding they have gobbled the browser market. Why does quicken circa 1997 REQUIRE IE to be installed for an ACCOUNTING package? Becuase MS forced them to require it under their licensing scheme. thanx, bill "I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog." Richard Eaton spy software innovator
Post #29,242 by Brandioch 2/21/02 12:33:22 PM Reply	I haven't met one that wouldn't. How many automobile manufacturers give dealers the freedom to modify cars any which way? Every single one of them, in my experience. Sure, they might charge a lot more if I want something weird. But they'll put whatever wheels I want on it. They'll put whatever tires I want on it. They'll have it where ever I want to pick it up at. You want different seats? No problem. Tinted windowss? Can do. A chain-link steering wheel and dingle balls? It will take a week extra and they'll charge you for installation. They are only TOO willing to sell you a car and charge you for their mechanic's time. Don't you think there are valid reasons for that? Yep. 'Cause there's competition for your money. If they don't do it, some one else will. Even if a vendor has had problems with brand confidence in the past, do you think they should be required, for any reason, to abandon practices designed to protect it? Nope. Give the customer what the customer wants. But, then again, if the car spontaniously bursts into flame, you can sue the manufacturer. Who do you complain to when your computer crashes?
Post #29,266 by warmachine 2/21/02 1:55:51 PM Reply	A natural monopoly would be leverage into a free market. And I believe it is unfair and unreasonable to require them[MS and third parties] to take it[risk of browser-OS incompatibility]. Your thoughts? If Microsoft sold Windows as a complete, non-extensible application suite, avoidance of risk would make sense. But Microsoft sell an operating system which is a platform for separate applications. MS own a natural monopoly in the PC desktop operating system but don't own the PC application market. If MS is not required to publish application interfaces beyond their application divisions, this allows them to use their monopoly as leverage into an application market. This is leverage no third party can hope to counter; a free market is no longer free. Unless we want to turn the web browser market into a monopoly, MS has to live with incompatibility risk. The third-party developers take most of the risk anyway. If MS weren't being anti-competitive, they'd publish the browser interface and expect third parties to adhere to that. If a program doesn't work and it isn't a problem with the OS, then the third party has to fix it. If a ton of basic Windows stuff doesn't work\ufffd- ... - who do you think the user will blame? Whose brand do you think the user will lose confidence in? So, Microsoft should be allowed to dictate OEM configuration because they might mess it up, even though the OEM has to support it? Because a PC uses their operating system, their brand extends to all hardware and software that use it? The OEM is not a brand in itself? If, for some reason, MS does not bounce a support call to the OEM, they can demonstrate to the end user that the configuration isn't theirs, get IE installed and get it working. The end user would then understand whose software was at fault and reassign the blame. In short, Microsoft should maintain the proverbial Chinese Wall between the OS and other divisions for competitive practices. Microsoft Outlook - one, big, macro virus portal.
Post #29,275 by bepatient 2/21/02 2:57:47 PM Reply	How the monopoly works. IE integration. IE is >now< a "non-trivial" component of the operating system. Interesting..that an application such as web browsing be so tied to an OS...Win95 didn't even install a browser initially...is 98 or ME that far removed from those earlier versions? Really? So...how do you convince someone that your actions are "in the consumers best interest" when your intention is to drive your competition into extinction. Take a trivial component...a web browser...and weave it so deeply into your product that it becomes "non-trivial". Then...you can't remove it...things will break...you can't modify it...things will break. Honest, your Honor...it >has< to be there to insure a "uniform customer experience". Please. Now you seem to be supporting further extension of that monopoly. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #29,287 by imric 2/21/02 5:11:34 PM 2/21/02 5:30:40 PM Reply	Homogenity over all. The reasons are practical. IE is a nontrivial component So - only trivial 'components' are permissible to replace. And - who judges? Microsoft's legal and marketing departments, no? After all, MS declared that IE was integrated before MS developers smeared it across so many .dlls and forced explorer to depend on it. you've probably never done hard time trying to get a nontrivial Java product to work correctly under several different vendors' JVMs I've run ide's across different jvms (and platforms) with little or no problems - does the definition of 'nontrivial' mean that it didn't work when you tried it? risk that neither Microsoft nor any other software developer in the same situation has any reason to take. And I believe it is unfair and unreasonable to require them to take it. Your thoughts? Require? Funny, nobody asked MS to replace it's own product with competing ones (unless as a punishment for breaking the law as egregiously as they have been shown to). This is not the same thing as allowing OEM's to customize products that they pay for. More - who do you think the user will blame? Whose brand do you think the user will lose confidence in? Hmmm. Let's see. Let's say a Compaq product has a problem, and user A can't run his programs. He calls Compaq for support, and still can't get his stuff to run. Then he calls MS for support, and MS has him reload Windows (not far-fetched, it's a common enough response from MS). Suddenly, his 'pure' MS system runs! In this scenario, we are to believe that User A will blame Microsft, not Compaq? Let's try this - neither MS support OR Compaq can get things to run... The user will of course ignore the brand name on the desktop in front of him as the cause, as well, right? Of course they wouldn't curse 'that Compaq piece of sht'. Now, let's look at Compaq support fixing the problem. Yeah, they might blame Windows. Do you think they won't blame Windows now? OK - now the case that a value-add from Compaq increases performance or makes the interface more appealing - this is bad for MS how? Only bad if they DON'T actually have the best product, and can't compete on quality with the OEM's value-add. Bottom line: Right now, the OEMs bear the responsibility for support, anyway. Saying that allowing OEMs to customize systems in any way that they want is 'bad' is denying that OEM value-adds bear importance to OEM sales. Even if the OEMs botched the job, that would simply make a 'pure' Microsoft system a selling point. How many automobile manufacturers give dealers the freedom to modify cars any which way? Don't you think there are valid reasons for that? If I buy a car and modify it extensively, then sell it - no problem. It's been modified, the 'stock' auto mfg. is no longer required to 'support' it (though I'm required to, and may offer an extended service plan if I wish) - and has nothing more to do with it. If I do this with 50, a hundred, a thousand a day, it doesn't matter. The auto manufacturers can't stop me. If I were to do this with Microsoft products, I'd be put out of business. Your arguments seem to be a tired rehash of the MS-apologian practice of blaming 'third party' software for every quirk and instability that end-users experience (often without investigating the problem thoroughly). Imric's Tips for Living* Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win. Edited by imric Feb. 21, 2002, 05:30:40 PM EST Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!