Comment Re:How is an exclusive agrement competition? (Score 1) 242
some good points, some innacurate ones.
Actually, I don't think they can. Microsoft's exclusive agreements with OEMs regarding the distribution of IE is one of the things that got them into trouble
Well....yes, but Microsoft wasn't paying the OEM to make IE the only browser (The only option a company with no ties to the OS, like AOL, would have), instead they used their power as the owner of the OS to say "IE will be the ONLY browser to come intalled on your machines or you can't pre-install windows". If MS uses methods that any other company with no connections to the OS can use to secure exclusive desktop rights, then they are not acting as a monopoly, likewise if IE was made by company X and company X payed MS to make IE the only browser allowed on the windows desktop then that would be fine because campany Y could pay MS more than company X thus taking away the exclusive rights of company X. Since MS owns the OS, the browser, and the ISP, it is illegal for them to use any one of those areas to unfairly aid the other, in this case they are using their ownership of windows to aid their OS.
Microsoft's not allowing AOL exclusive desktop space also has another effect. It means that other ISPs that don't have AOL's heap of cash will be more likely able to get their icons on the desktop.
Not necessarily, lets say local ISP A wants local OEM B to put their icon on the desktop. Local OEM looks at their current setup and says hmmmm, I've got an AOL icon, a compu-serve icon, and a prodigy icon...."sure!", yay local company A reaches more users....but what if local OEM B said...hmmmm, I've got an AOL icon, a compu-serve icon, and a prodigy icon, I NEED TO HAVE AN MSN icon, "sorry I don't want to put too many icons on my desktop, its too cluttered"....local ISP A fails.
I agree AOL shouln't be able to have exclusive contracts because it's not good for the consumer, but the only fair way for MS to combat this is to say "You must have at least 2 seperate ISPs or none at all". This way they are not using their monopoly powers to aid their ISP, they are using their power over their OS to help the consumer, which is not a monopoly action.
In short choice is good, but the way MS is doing it is wrong and may harm the consumer.
Actually, I don't think they can. Microsoft's exclusive agreements with OEMs regarding the distribution of IE is one of the things that got them into trouble
Well....yes, but Microsoft wasn't paying the OEM to make IE the only browser (The only option a company with no ties to the OS, like AOL, would have), instead they used their power as the owner of the OS to say "IE will be the ONLY browser to come intalled on your machines or you can't pre-install windows". If MS uses methods that any other company with no connections to the OS can use to secure exclusive desktop rights, then they are not acting as a monopoly, likewise if IE was made by company X and company X payed MS to make IE the only browser allowed on the windows desktop then that would be fine because campany Y could pay MS more than company X thus taking away the exclusive rights of company X. Since MS owns the OS, the browser, and the ISP, it is illegal for them to use any one of those areas to unfairly aid the other, in this case they are using their ownership of windows to aid their OS.
Microsoft's not allowing AOL exclusive desktop space also has another effect. It means that other ISPs that don't have AOL's heap of cash will be more likely able to get their icons on the desktop.
Not necessarily, lets say local ISP A wants local OEM B to put their icon on the desktop. Local OEM looks at their current setup and says hmmmm, I've got an AOL icon, a compu-serve icon, and a prodigy icon...."sure!", yay local company A reaches more users....but what if local OEM B said...hmmmm, I've got an AOL icon, a compu-serve icon, and a prodigy icon, I NEED TO HAVE AN MSN icon, "sorry I don't want to put too many icons on my desktop, its too cluttered"....local ISP A fails.
I agree AOL shouln't be able to have exclusive contracts because it's not good for the consumer, but the only fair way for MS to combat this is to say "You must have at least 2 seperate ISPs or none at all". This way they are not using their monopoly powers to aid their ISP, they are using their power over their OS to help the consumer, which is not a monopoly action.
In short choice is good, but the way MS is doing it is wrong and may harm the consumer.
