bundling thoughts
Sean
picasso@madflower.com
Tue, 14 Aug 2001 15:54:22 -0400 (EDT)
By bringing software over to Windows actually hurts Free Software because
you havent supported a company that does spend money developing software
in the public domain. And at the same time you give people less of a
reason to switch platforms and less reasons for people to develop for it.
And in the same breath you bitch because they don't support your platform.
*boggles* I don't understand how you could even have that kind of logic.
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Marcel Kunath wrote:
> Ok now I know where you are coming from. I get your point.
>
> But I still don't feel guilty. I am past the stage where I even try to
> convince anybody to use my OS because my OS is (fill in the void). It just
> doesn't work or I am not convincing enough. So just because I propose leveling
> the playing field by cleaning up the bundle mess in the Windows domain doesn't
> mean I am a supporter of the Windows operating system. I just care about equal
> and fair treatment when it comes to competiton in a market and that is why I
> raised this subject. I had no intention to talk down Apple by discussing
> Windows and bundling.
>
> That is also why I gave up on my Kodak webcam. I cannot convince Kodak to
> release the specs for it. I got to eat the 150 bucks (back then) and in the
> future if I ever buy some webcam I make sure first I use one which does/is
> support/ed /by Linux. So you are right, but I didn't have the intention to diss
> Apple but only discuss an issue.
>
> Sorry,
>
> mk
>
>
> >
> > What you propose has already been done, Apple bundles Apache, php, perl,
> > tcl, gcc, etc etc with MacOS X along side IE and a few others which they
> > get paid for.
> >
> > So when I say you are a hypocrit, it is because you are supporting a
> > company M$ that doesnt bundle free software, instead of a company like
> > Apple who does.
> >
> > And in fact you are promoting M$ by creating a Free software bundle
> > instead of promoting a company that already does what you want.
> >
> > Matter of fact I know the _next_ argument is you don't like Apple
> > hardware, well Apple's core is Open Source and some people are working on
> > an X86 port and I am sure they would be more than willing to have some
> > help getting it ported. All in the spirit of Free software of course.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Marcel Kunath wrote:
> >
> > > I still don't see where I am a hypcrit. I said I don't like bundling and if
> > > anything comes bundled it should be on CD and the user decides if to install
>
> > > it. (not sure if I said that somewhere....I am losing track in this debate)
> > >
> > > Then I said the courts said bundling is legal and if that is so we should us
> e
> > > it to our advantage. Enforce a bundling of free software if one wishes to do
> so
> > > and level the playing field in regards to users and what they see on their
> > > desktop. (BTW I don't believe every user should be a Linux user. So I don't
> > > see anything wrong with promoting free software on the Windows platform.)
> > >
> > > At the end you asked if we got that kind of cash to make those deals. As I
> > > wrote before companies make deals according to the expectation of
> > > profits. They than share those profits in cross licensing whatever bundle
> > > agreements. Since free software makes no profits does this mean we should as
> k
> > > for free software to be included for free and do we have a right for this to
>
> > > happen? It would still be a sharing of profits because 1/3 of zero profits i
> s
> > > still zero. The profit sharing idea simply doesn't work anyhow since Microso
> ft
> > > gets free IE installs on XP and even if it shared profits it would share the
> m
> > > with itself. Hence my above reasoning that applications belong separate from
> OS
> > > on a CD, not the harddrive, or else you end up with a powerful monopoly.
> > >
> > > mk
> > >
> > > > > 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 wouldn
> t
> > > > 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
> thin
> > > k
> > > > > the bundling the way it is done is unfair and IF we bundle THEN bundle f
> airl
> > > y.
> > > > > I can't change the law and the courts said bundling is legal. So then le
> ts u
> > > se
> > > > > 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 com
> mon
> > > > > 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 co
> st.
> > > > > 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 eac
> h
> > > > > gained customer. I suspect that these 35 dollars are a share of the prof
> its
> > > 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 ou
> r fr
> > > ee
> > > > > 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 wa
> nt t
> > > hem
> > > > > 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 Microso
> ft
> > > > > includes IE for free. There is no doubt that there is a _sub group of IE
> use
> > > rs_
> > > > > 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$'s business > practices are then in the next breath proclaim supportin
> g th
> > > eir
> > > > > > business practices by wanting to bundle software for it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It boils down to economics, this isnt very hard economics. If you _us
> e_
> > > > > > (yes this includes warez) anything that only works on Windows, then in
>
> > > > > > fact you are supporting M$ 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 giv
> ing
> > > > > > the green light to M$.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It really isnt that hard to live without M$. It really isnt hard to sa
> y 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 it
> s so
> > > ftwa
> > > > > re
> > > > > > > products with its operating system. It builds an anti-competitive ad
> vant
> > > age
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > them. The only way this should be allowed is if competitors are as w
> ell
> > > allo
> > > > > wed
> > > > > > > to deliver their products pre-installed or even pre-delivered (on th
> e MS
> > >
> > > > > > > install CD).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Overall I think this is not manageable and MS should not be allowed
> to b
> > > undl
> > > > > e
> > > > > > > anything but just sell their cut down OS and deliver any additional
> soft
> > > ware
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > extra CD to be installed by the user.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here is why. Now Kodak is powerful and has the ability to force Micr
> osof
> > > t 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 y
> > > ou s
> > > > > ee
> > > > > > > left out? FSF.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't know if this becomes general practice I would hope the FSF f
> iles
> > > a
> > > > > > > lawsuit and demands free software developers are as well given a pie
> ce o
> > > f th
> > > > > e
> > > > > > > pie and be allowed to put their programs on a users desktop. I could
> thi
> > > nk o
> > > > > f
> > > > > > > programs like NTEmacs and isn't there a vi for Windows? And this wou
> ld p
> > > rove
> > > > >
> > > > > > > how stupid the bundling argument really is.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Case in point.....non-OS software may be bundled but only by deliver
> y 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 w
> ith
> > > 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 thi
> s wh
> > > ole
> > > > > > > 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 y
> > > ou
> > > > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 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
>