bundling thoughts

Sean picasso@madflower.com
Tue, 14 Aug 2001 12:21:25 -0400 (EDT) 

All I am saying is you are perpetuating the whole problem which to me is
hypocrital, if M$ didnt have 90% of the desktop marketshare this wouldnt
even be an issue. Thus by bringing good software to the Windows platform
by bundling it. M$ will keep its 90% monopoly and may in fact increase it,
because now they have the good tools that made another platform better.

Two examples, and I will use the MacOS as examples only because they were
the first examples i could think of.

First.
MacOS was the kick ass platform for graphic arts for years,
because they had kick-ass software comapnies like Adobe, which was
Mac-only for a very long time. When Adobe ported it gave people an excuse
to leave the Mac platform not because the software ran better on Windows,
and in fact it doesnt run as well, but because people could use Windows,
thus you saw a huge shift in the platform people used for the task.

Second and more appropriate example.

Apple gets paid by M$ to include IE as the default web browser.
In otherwords, M$ is paying themselves to include IE with their OS to gain
customers in another market as you pointed out with the passport example.
So M$ is making money on the deal, it just doesnt come in direct sales.

M$ will happily bundle free software with their product, provided it is
bug-free by their testing labs (costs money for testing, costs money for
the dev tools, etc etc, all payable to M$) and you PAY them to bundle it.

How much would it cost? well lets see.. M$ paid Apple 150 million dollars
to bundle IE with the MacOS, as part of a deal, that included M$ promising
M$ Office support for the platform and like a 250  million dollar
investment in the company.

Got that kind of cash? =)

On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Marcel Kunath wrote:

> Woah,
>
> I don't think so. All I did was analyze what the situation is and say I think
> the bundling the way it is done is unfair and IF we bundle THEN bundle fairly.
> I can't change the law and the courts said bundling is legal. So then lets use
> the laws to our advantage and bundle as well.
>
> I didn't say Microsoft acts badly but let's extend this so we are on common
> ground. I said I had thoughts and ideas and this needs fixing.
>
> I don't think this is a terrible idea. I hadn't even talked about the cost.
> Bundling costs money. The computer builder has to do it or Microsoft or
> somebody has to do the work. So AOL pays some builder 35 dollars for each
> gained customer. I suspect that these 35 dollars are a share of the profits AOL
> expects from this future customer. So I like to ask if free software is free
> and we make no profit do we have the right to ask builders to include our free
> software for 0 dollars since its a fair share of our profits?
>
> And I am asking and not saying I am right. Hmmm maybe I should create a
> standard disclaimer to my emails that all of my words are ideas and I want them
> to be questioned...
>
> I think if some software is included for free then other software should be
> included for free. Otherwise a general fee may be useful. I mean Microsoft
> includes IE for free. There is no doubt that there is a _sub group of IE users_
> which lets itself define as follows:
>
> Windows users
>    become IE users
>       become msn.com users
>          become hotmail users
>             become passport users
>                become .net CUSTOMERS
>
> So who does Microsoft pay for gaining these customers? Nobody.
>
>  mk
>
> > > I would call
> you a hypocrit, you bitch about how bad
> M$'s business > practices are then in the next breath proclaim supporting their
> > business practices by wanting to bundle software for it.
> >
> > It boils down to economics, this isnt very hard economics.  If you _use_
> > (yes this includes warez) anything that only works on Windows, then in
> > fact you are supporting M$ in their endeavers, If you cannot find what you
> > _need_ on another platform then you aren't looking hard enough.
> >
> > This includes helping people install Windows, fixing their machine,
> > proclaiming a M$ only game is the greatest, etc. You basically are giving
> > the green light to M$.
> >
> > It really isnt that hard to live without M$. It really isnt hard to say no
> > i can't fix your machine, or no I haven't played quake22 for windows, or
> > no I don't have a copy of Window XP you can borrow to install on your
> > machine. And it really isnt hard to find the software you need to be a
> > productive.
> >
> > Sean
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Marcel Kunath wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I was just reading this:
> > >
> > > http://www.thestreet.com/tech/software/1517338.html
> > >
> > > and I am having thoughts.
> > >
> > > First of all I agree that Microsoft is violating laws by bundling its softwa
> re
> > > products with its operating system. It builds an anti-competitive advantage
> for
> > > them. The only way this should be allowed is if competitors are as well allo
> wed
> > > to deliver their products pre-installed or even pre-delivered (on the MS
> > > install CD).
> > >
> > > Overall I think this is not manageable and MS should not be allowed to bundl
> e
> > > anything but just sell their cut down OS and deliver any additional software
>  on
> > > extra CD to be installed by the user.
> > >
> > > Here is why. Now Kodak is powerful and has the ability to force Microsoft to
>
> > > the above concession. And now AOL and Real want in on the deal. Then it is
> > > Norton and then McAfee and then god knows whatever company. And who do you s
> ee
> > > left out? FSF.
> > >
> > > I don't know if this becomes general practice I would hope the FSF files a
> > > lawsuit and demands free software developers are as well given a piece of th
> e
> > > pie and be allowed to put their programs on a users desktop. I could think o
> f
> > > programs like NTEmacs and isn't there a vi for Windows? And this would prove
>
> > > how stupid the bundling argument really is.
> > >
> > > Case in point.....non-OS software may be bundled but only by delivery on CD.
>  I
> > > figure all free software developers could organize and put together a CD whi
> ch
> > > the user then uses to install free software and this CD is bundled with ever
> y
> > > PC sold which comes with Windows.
> > >
> > > I am curious to see what would happen if Jabber or so would ask for its IM
> > > client to be bundled with XP. I am sure Microsoft would get a laugh out of i
> t.
> > >
> > > Hmmmm this makes me wonder if I should write this whole idea up and post it
> on
> > > linuxtoday.com and raise some awareness to the ludicriousness of this whole
> > > ordeal and see if maybe free software can get in on the deal....
> > >
> > > I know people hate my crazy ideas but heck you live only once. What do you
> > > think?
> > >
> > >  -- Marcel
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > linux-user mailing list
> > > linux-user@egr.msu.edu
> > > http://www.egr.msu.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-user
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-user mailing list
> > linux-user@egr.msu.edu
> > http://www.egr.msu.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-user
> >
>
>
> --
> Marcel Kunath
>
> *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>
>  Montie House Network            Greater Lansing Linux Users Group
>   http://www.montiehouse.com      http://www.gllug.org
>
> *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> _______________________________________________
> linux-user mailing list
> linux-user@egr.msu.edu
> http://www.egr.msu.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-user
>