Well...seeing that the Internet is really the "future" of computing, the
next logical step in the evolution of operating systems is to have the web
browser integrated into the OS. Seeing that it IS Microsoft's OS, then
they really should have say what is integrated and what is not. :) Any
efforts by the government to impede this "evolution" of sorts will only
result in the slowing down of the world getting online, and further
"evolutions" that will make the web and internet more efficient. I say
that because every time the government steps into these situations, it
only hurts the overall industry. :\
With car radios, you have a nice little scenario. Looking at it from that
standpoint, I guess I would get mad if a radio were "integrated" into the
car. If I don't like a radio, I'll replace it. However, the integration
of a radio into a car really doesn't help the efficiency of the car
getting on the road. :P
So...go ahead...flame away. :P
Just more IMHO comments. :P
Blake Wylie
1970 MGB
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Scott Gardner wrote:
> No LBC content here, but this is the biggest group of intelligent,
> insightful and opinionated people I can reach on a short notice, and
> I need to bounce something off of y'all.
> If you haven't been following the story, the government has accused
> Microsoft of unfair business practices by "bundling" their new
> Internet Explorer 4.0 web browser with Windows 98. The claim is that
> the web browser is NOT an integral part of the operating system, but
> rather is an application program, and that by making it difficult for
> the end user to uninstall IE 4.0, that this will hurt companies such
> as Netscape that make a living selling web browsers, since most users
> will just blindly go with the Microsoft web browser that comes with
> the operating system.
> My question is, how does this differ from auto makers putting radios
> in new cars? No one could argue that a stereo is essential or
> integral to the operation of an automobile. While some car companies
> will offer a "radio delete" option allowing you to purchase a new car
> without a radio, many others do not. Some of the companies that DO
> offer the "radio delete" force you to buy the stereo anyway by making
> it part of an "option package" along with other options such as power
> windows or a sunroof. You can get the radio deleted, but that breaks
> up the "option package", and you lose the discount for buying the
> options as a package, thus spending more money than if you had gone
> ahead and kept the radio in the car in the first place.
> There are many car audio companies that would presumably make more
> money if new cars didn't come with radios already equipped, so why
> haven't they cried foul yet? While car owners CAN remove the
> factory radio and replace it with an aftermarket radio, this is very
> difficult on some cars due to switch location/integrated dashboards,
> etc., and many owners are just going to stick with the radio that
> came with the car, since it's already there.
> I'm sure there are other products and companies that have similar
> practices, but this was the first one that popped to mind. Any
> opinions?
>
> Scott
>
>
>
|