Re: Bundling and operating systems

[Mitch Stone <mstone@vc.net>]

--- From a message sent by Eric Lee Green on 12/19/99 12:10 PM ---

>On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, Mitch Stone wrote:
>> Eric, the reason you're not hearing much support for your viewpoints is 
>> not because we don't agree. Speaking for myself, at least, I believe you 
>> are 100% correct, and I believe others feel likewise. And you have 
>> articulated the points succinctly and lucidly, which is entirely to your 
>> credit. No, the reason we stay clear of the fray is because we are simply 
>> bone-weary of Lewis Mettler's broken record approach to this question. 
>
>Oh, I was already aware of that. I started this thread primarily to allow 
>Lewis
>Mettler to make a fool out of himself, which he has proceeded to do by saying
>that a prominent Linux activist is a Microsoft plant and that if one single
>person is harmed by a bundling action then it's illegal. 

I suspect he would say "harmful," but these terms are moving targets 
anyway. And to suggest that bundling might not always be harmful (let 
alone, illegal), is to be branded a Microsoft dupe. And so it goes. We 
know the drill.

>> You will soon learn (I sincerely hope) that his position is inflexible 
>> and absolutist in the extreme, and that he will reject out of hand all 
>> data which does not conform to his rather bizarre theories.
>
>I suspect that I will be going away soon, simply because the entertainment
>value of watching L.A.M.E. humiliate himself will soon wear thin. I do think
>that his focus upon one particular action, bundling IE as part of Windows 
>98, is
>short-sighted and ignores the realities of the modern operating systems
>market..  It is Microsoft's business practices and abuses of its monopoly
>position, such as not allowing Netscape to be bundled with the OS on an equal
>basis with IE and its retaliation against OEM's which dare to sell machines
>without an OS for use by Fortune 500 companies that have already
>site-licensed Microsoft operating systems, which has resulted in consumer 
>harm.
>The bundling of IE, by contrast, has had only a minor effect, and it would 
>have
>been minor indeed if vendors such as Compaq had been allowed to bundle 
>Netscape
>on an equal basis. 

Don't go away -- change the subject.

The bundling of MSIE with Win 95 should be seen as round one in a two 
round fight. The knockout punch was to be delivered with integration. 
>From the start, Microsoft was determined to "cut off Netscape's air 
supply," and the free distribution of MSIE (plus free access to pay 
services) was part of that effort. If the OEMs had been afforded more 
freedom to bundle whichever browser they preferred with Win 95 (and many 
bundled both), perhaps Microsoft's ability to force IE would have been 
blunted, but not necessarily turned back. Even before integration, 
though, Microsoft had plenty of excess financial leverage to spare to 
facilitate the IE dumping campaign and every intention of using it.

Mitch Stone
mstone@vc.net