[Am-info] level the playing field

[Joe Moore]

"Lewis A. Mettler" wrote:
> Leaving the Windows bundle intact means nothing.  Consumers must be
> given their right to pick and choose the technology "they think they
> need".  That simply means that if they think they need Lantastic
> networking, the Microsoft brand must not be included.  Period.  If they
> think they need Navigator, then Internet Explorer must not be included.
> If they think they need Stac disc compression (compatible across NT,
> OS/2 and DOS) then the Microsoft brand must not be included.

I wonder how to get "their" opinion?  I mean, you know what "they" say.

Do we have a public opinion poll, "Should drivers for a 3.5" floppy disk
drive be required on every computer [ ]Yes  [ ]No"????  And if anyone
says "No" then it couldn't be involved in a bundle?

Who pays for this poll?
Who pays for the software creator to pull out the 3.5" floppy driver
from their existing product, just because 3 people in east nowhere don't
have a 3.5" floppy, only a 5.25" floppy?
Who pays for the additional media that you have to buy in order to get
the 3.5" floppy driver?
Who pays for the person who processes the purchase order for that
license to use the 3.5" floppy driver?

How will this additional cost affect the price of the operating system?

--Joe

P.S. Lewis, I'm still waiting for your example of a software suite which
is not a bundle.  Until you can come up with one, the only logical
conclusion is that there are no software suites, only bundles.

-- 
IBM's vision is apparently to make IBM hardware "scream with Microsoft 
software" --The Register,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/990927-000003.html

I have visions of screaming with (at and about) Microsoft software, too.