SuperSite Blog

Soooo true.  I look forward to downloading this as Verizon crippled my XV6800... but this really is the issue.

Just installed it... amazing how it's a separate app as opposed to integrating into the Messaging tab where all my other email is... silly.  GMail actually is a better IMAP email account for WinMo than Hotmail is.  

Ruh - Roh.  I installed and did a soft reset (once the install was finished of course) just to free up memory, etc... runs thru the intro WinMo screens and then a blank screen.  Need to do a Hard Reset?  Not Good.

Wait, Paul... I thought you were a Windows troll and never had anything good to say about Apple!  I'm so confused.... ;)

Totally true what you say about the carrier relationships.  They are probably different departments in ATT--one for the iPhone, and another (or others) for everyone else.  Microsoft needs to have a sit-down with the carriers.

Thank God for Wireless Sync for Verizon... just hard reset and all my data is re-sync'd from the VZW Cloud.  Whew.  Was nervous there for a bit.  I may hold off trying to install Windows Live again.  It's not delivering anything very compelling without Messenger right now.

Dead-on, Paul, though Apple hasn't put a chat client on the iPhone either.  So in that instance, both of them appear to be appeasing the carriers in their ludicrous mission to charge people for bits called "SMS" that would otherwise be included in the "unlimited" data plan. Then again, AOL was on stage with Steve to demo an AIM client, so they aren't as bad as MS is in this case.

Is it not possible to put a third party chat client on a WinMo phone?

This speaks to the heart of the difference between Apple and MIcrosoft, which you and Mary J Foley really dug into in the podcast.  Microsoft's customers are not end users and never have been.  They are OEM's and Carriers.  Microsoft's DNA is not wired to fight for what end users want.  They don't stand up to the labels on DRM the way Steve Jobs has.  They don't even consider using their clout to change the Wireless Carriers behavior on behalf of a better end-user experience.  At an institutional level, these kinds of thoughts don't happen.  Steve Ballmer doesn't care about users the way Steve Jobs does.

Could these things happen?  Of course!  Could Microsoft have stood up to the carriers?  Obviously the answer is yes.  But that it didn't happen shows that they didn't try.

iPhone is going to force them to move faster and better or have the WinMo market marginalized.  Once carrier exclusivity goes away, it'll be all over.  Phones aren't like computers.  Single hardware vendors and single models can utterly dominate the phone market.  It's much more akin to the game console market... hardware+software tied together for a seamless experience.

Good analysis, though, Paul.

Pingback from  Apple » Put Windows Live on your Windows Mobile phone

I didn't really see a point to following on this announcement. I do have an MSN email account, but nothing really important goes there. I don't even use it for much. I stopped using MSN Messenger several years ago when I became swamped with friend requests from Russian brides. About the only thing I could use from a Live Mobile application is an offline blogging client for Windows Live Spaces, but that apparently isn't in the cards.

The downloadable Windows Live for Windows Mobile package has been around for a while.

It is extremely pathetic that it doesnt come with Windows Live Messenger, but the good news is that that doesn't matter.

Head on over to www.xda-developers.com where the you can find a full-featured package of Windows Live in the forums.

Part of the problem is simply MS's corner-cutting tendencies.  Traditionally, they are behind someone else and need to get to market with a copy or reasonable facsimile of a copy as soon as practicable.

In order to secure the right to install a chat app, which  I am sure MS would love to do, they would have to negotiate with all of the carriers that sell winmobile phones.  This could be done, but it would take a lot of time.  The imperative is getting to market, so it gets brushed aside.

This also illustrates there is a cost to wide distribution.  People blindly assume it's a bad thing that the iPhone is sold only by AT&T.  But in the tightly controlled U.S. cell market, this allowed apple to do the tough negotiation with ONE CARRIER.  And apple was able to secure the ability to do things like, install any app it wants, by GIVING SOMETHING BACK TO AT&T, namely exclusivity.   There's upsides and downsides to everything.  Here, in the U.S. cellphone system, the problem with wide distribution is that you have less negotiating power.  

Well,  yeah, but at least "Windows Live for Windows Mobile" is a cool name!  

"The primary innovation of the iPhone has nothing to do with technology..."

You're mostly wrong here, of course, but not completely.

ROFL@JohnPapola

"Steve Ballmer doesn't care about users the way Steve Jobs does. They don't stand up to the labels on DRM the way Steve Jobs has"

You just made my day.

@weedmonk

Let me help your day clear up with some simple history and reality.

"When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content."

- Steve Jobs in Rolling Stone 2003. Then of course there's Steve's manifesto on DRM last year that trolls called being opportunistic until they were reminded of this quote in Rolling Stone.

www.rollingstone.com/.../steve_jobs_the_rolling_stone_interview

On the other hand... there's Ballmer, who was trying to appeal to the labels with a jab at iPods being full of stolen music.

"We've had DRM (digital rights management) in Windows for years... Part of the reason people steal music is money, but some of it is that the DRM stuff out there has not been that easy to use. We are going to continue to improve our DRM, to make it harder to crack, and easier, easier, easier, easier to use."

- Steve Ballmer on Cnet 2004 (just one of many many instances where Ballmer touts Microsoft's DRM efforts).

www.news.com/.../2100-1027_3-5395870.html

Again.  The end user is not Ballmer's concern.  DRM is a product unto itself for him that he is selling to OEM's as a software license.  He promotes it.  Jobs has consistently spoken out in a reasonable and rational way against it's use in music.

DRM is a product.  Just ask Macrovision.  For Apple, though, it's a feature forced on them out of necessity, not something they pro-actively developed and marketed unto itself.

Jobs cares about user experience.  He may be a design dictator, but he sweats the small stuff in getting things to work for users.  No honest denying of that.

@jp - "Jobs has consistently spoken out in a reasonable and rational way against it's use in music."

But yet, he continues to sell music that includes it. I realize that Apple and others(MS, Amazon, etc.) have convinced some of the big labels to drop the requirement for DRM...but if Jobs truly feels that strongly about it, why not refuse to sell that label's stuff? Don't you think that we have moved far enough into the age of digital music that if several of the top digital music outlets refused to sell their product, that they would change the requirement?

--tayme

Hi Paul, thanks for the link! I've updated the post to include a shorter URL for folks to download Windows Live for Windows Mobile:

http://wl.windowsmobile.com/

Thanks,

Brandon

tayme are you so clueless?  

The big music labels have gone with Amazon to get back at Apple because they are not flexible on price and they think that Apples market share allows them to dictate to the music labels how its going to be.

Of course Apple is still going to sell DRM music because they WANT TO MAKE MONEY and they are not a charity.  The music labels are flat out stupid for cutting out the biggest seller of digital music.   Then again they have always been stupid.

I have said it before and I will say it again.  If joe user is going to actually buy music online (that was IF weedmonk/weehorn) then joe does not care or even know what DRM is.  Joe makes up 98% of iTunes content buyers.

@tayme

"But yet, he continues to sell music that includes it"

Have you not read the torrent of reports that the Labels are intentionally withholding drm-free songs from iTunes in a pointless effort to weaken Apple's position?  Well, they are.  It's called illegal collusion, and the RIAA has been hit with it multiple times.

Why are they trying to hurt the one strong that has revolutionized their industry?  Because they want to suicidally gouge consumers of course, and Jobs stands in their way.  They hate that Jobs stands up to them.

"but if Jobs truly feels that strongly about it, why not refuse to sell that label's stuff?"

Because that would make him the stupidest CEO on earth.  Why would he intentionally hobble his business and hand the keys to competitors by making his catalog less attractive and complete than other stores?

The reality is, most users don't run into trouble with DRM in iTunes.  It's seamless, and easily averted.  Still, on principle, it sucks... and Apple is doing what it can to stand on principle.  

Video, however, is another matter.

"on principle, [DRM] sucks... and Apple is doing what it can to stand on principle."

now you're just apologizing for Apple.  Fairplay is a product too, just like Windows Media rights management technologies under all of their different names (PlaysForSure, the DRM used on Zune, etc.).  You're trying to make it sound like Jobs is just some kind of saviour against DRM when Amazon beat him to market.  He still can't deliver.  Apple can't have their cake and eat it too.  They either have their cake, or they can eat it (sic!).

"Video, however, is another matter."

Try to tell a music creator or producer why DRM is bad for them, and that special exceptions have to be made for the video industry to protect their content, and that music person will give you a swift pop in the mouth.  Being in video production yourself, your bias is glaring.

If DRM is bad, you can't justify placing such partisan ideals on one media type over another.

Windows Mobile is rubbish but 3rd party software (such as Spb's Mobile Shell & Phone Suit) makes it very usable.

At least now there is a program to sync Outlook and Live contacts!

James

@Waethorn,

"Fairplay is a product too".

Nope.  There are no customers for Fairplay by itself. It is not licensed or promoted.  Fairplay is like the iPods click-wheel.  Not a product, buts a feature of iTunes downloads and one that was added at the demand of the labels.  Apple didn't approach the labels saying "we have this great DRM that will protect your music" the way Microsoft did.  They did the opposite.  I don't believe Apple even had fairplay inhouse when they approached the labels.  I think they bought it after the labels demanded it.

"You're trying to make it sound like Jobs is just some kind of saviour against DRM when Amazon beat him to market.  He still can't deliver"

Um... Apple and EMI announced and implemented the DRM-free tunes before the AmazonMP3 store went online.  That the other labels are intentionally trying to prop up Amazon to the exclusion of iTunes for their own ends is not Jobs fault.    They are also hedging their bets.  AmazonMP3 has insignificant marketshare which makes it a better testing ground for these gun shy labels.  Jobs is clearly a powerful negotiator, but he can only drag this horse to water, not make it drink.  This isn't like Microsoft and their illegal forcing of PC OEMs to pay for a Windows license for computers with other OSes.  Apple doesn't have monopoly power here because CDs still dominate total music sales.  

And for better or worse, again the reality is that only a tiny portion of the market currently cares about DRM in iTunes, as it's ever-growing marketshare plainly demonstrates.  The vast majority of people have iPods and aren't interested in changing.  No competitor has effectively given them a reason to.

"Try to tell a music creator or producer why DRM is bad for them, and that special exceptions have to be made for the video industry to protect their content, and that music person will give you a swift pop in the mouth.  Being in video production yourself, your bias is glaring."

With music, even illegal sharing can be argued to work as advertising that ultimately drives sales.  Remember the mix tape?  Radio?  There is a precedent here for free music portability.  And, of course, people listen to a song thousands of times in every location imaginable.  DRM is helpful and necessary for a subscription service and when itunes finally adopts this, it will become popular.  In the meantime, nobody wants these other subscription services.  But it hinders people's ability to listen to their music anywhere.

The problem with DRM-free for video is that most video content is a watch-once experience.  With the exception of kids movies and tv shows, most people don't buy or rent a movie and watch it more than twice and certainly not across multiple devices over and over.  They get it, watch it and it becomes worthless after that.  This makes DRM in video a murkier issue.  I'm not saying it's black and white, and you are correct to point out my inherent bias.  But I'm trying to be objective here.

If it can be demonstrated that file sharing has a net positive effect on video consumption AND revenue, I'll get fully behind drm-free video.  But for now, having a basic, interoperable DRM with some portability is probably necessary to keep honest people honest.  The pro pirates will always break any DRM, so that's a different issue.  I'm open to arguments against DRM on video, though, and I'm all for a broad drm standard for video, like DVD has.

"[FairPlay is] not a product, buts a feature of iTunes"

BRAVO!  You could win an Oscar for best writing in the comedic category for that bit of drivel!

"Apple didn't approach the labels saying "we have this great DRM that will protect your music" the way Microsoft did."

Actually, they went out and bought up technology from a 3rd-party just to do it.  Now, it's still used to enforce vendor lock-in.

"I don't believe Apple even had fairplay inhouse when they approached the labels.  I think they bought it after the labels demanded it."

You're assuming again.  And you know what they say about somebody who assumes....moreso about the person that makes the assumption anyway.

"Apple and EMI announced and implemented the DRM-free tunes before the AmazonMP3 store went online."

Ah yes, and EMI was also offered on AmazonMP3 shortly after, although ALL of the EMI music on AmazonMP3 was, and still is, DRM-free.  However, there are songs on iTunes that are also on Amazon that are NOT DRM-free, and Apple even tried jacking up the price even though AmazonMP3 was offering better quality, without ID-audit tagging, for less money.  Likewise, there are tracks from Nettwerk (who is totally opposed to DRM and litigation, and sell MP3's themselves) on iTunes with FairPlay included.  I guess that must be Apple bending to another record company's will again eh?

"AmazonMP3 has insignificant marketshare which makes it a better testing ground for these gun shy labels.  Jobs is clearly a powerful negotiator, but he can only drag this horse to water, not make it drink."

So, what is that?  Apology #749 for Apple?

"This isn't like Microsoft and their illegal forcing of PC OEMs to pay for a Windows license for computers with other OSes."

Way to go.  *clap*  *clap*  *clap*.  Change the subject when losing an argument....

"Apple doesn't have monopoly power here because CDs still dominate total music sales."

WRONG!  -  Piracy does!  And vendor lock-in does nothing to hedge that.  In fact, it has the opposite effect.

"No competitor has effectively given them a reason to."

Actually, it's Apple, with their vendor lock-in that is preventing competition.  If they really did away with DRM, it would break their whole closed ecosystem.  For now, it's just a way to increase iPod sales.

"DRM is helpful and necessary for a subscription service and when itunes finally adopts this, it will become popular."

But Steve-O advocates against this.  Could it be that you actually don't see eye-to-eye with him on this?  WOW!  We've broken new ground here people!

"In the meantime, nobody wants these other subscription services."

Ya, you know, cuz 17 million satellite radio subscribers must be in the wrong.

"With the exception of kids movies and tv shows, most people don't buy or rent a movie and watch it more than twice and certainly not across multiple devices over and over."

Ya, cuz kids are just a niche market, and before Bittorrent and P2P, DVD sales were already in the toilet....

....and nobody wants the extras or the additionals languages, right Paul??

"But for now, having a basic, interoperable DRM with some portability is probably necessary to keep honest people honest"

Again, you don't see eye-to-eye with the big Steve-O?  By your own admission there, he's not really all that honest now, is he?

Has anyone successfully installed this?  I was able to do it a second time - it slowed down my device big-time... and after a soft reset I get a bricked phone.  I've gone thru the hard-reset multiple times and tried over and over to get this to work... no success.  Anyone?  Beuller?  Beuller... Anyone....?

You can harp on the fact that Amazon has more DRM-free music that iTunes all you want.  It's great.  I've bought from it and put the tracks on my iPod.  No problem.  But this isn't Apple's fault.  You're trying to make it their fault because you are a blind Apple-hating one-note hack.  Everyone knows that the Labels are trying to weaken iTunes by withholding the tracks.  EVERYONE... but you apparently.

"17 million satellite radio subscribers must be in the wrong."

Um... how many online digital subscription users are there?  It's undebatably a failure so far.  This isn't to say that subscriptions are bad.  They're great.  But they've failed so far.  Period.  Satellite radio is a different beast... and even that is still a relatively small user base compared to the iPod alone.

"Actually, it's Apple, with their vendor lock-in that is preventing competition."

- Wrong.  It's so trivial to remove the DRM through burning a disc that it's simply a non-issue.  Movie and TV sales have been tiny compared to the iPod user base (not even close to 1 show/movie per ipod).

iTunes dominates solely because it works hand-in-glove with the ipod and delivers all the content at the same prices as everyone else.  If you don't like the DRM, there's no barrier at all to buying from Amazon if iTunes plus doesn't have the track.  This whole lock-in argument is total garbage and if you had any intellectual honesty at all, you'd admit that.  The only stores that have lock-in are subscriptions, and that's by design.

"Ya, cuz kids are just a niche market, and before Bittorrent and P2P, DVD sales were already in the toilet...."

What's your point?  Oh, that's right.  You're not able to have a real discussion.  Just a laundry list, snipe job with no deep thought at all.

"Again, you don't see eye-to-eye with the big Steve-O?  By your own admission there, he's not really all that honest now, is he?"

How does this make Steve Jobs dishonest? Playsforsure was broken.  Microsoft couldn't get it to work.  Ballmer admitted it.  Interoperable, cross-platform DRM may never really work outside of consumer electronics without it being prone to failure and locking users out of their content by default.

Dude, why don't you just TRY to have an honest discussion, instead of play moron dork "gotcha".  You just make yourself look like a jack@ss.

@jp - "Have you not read the torrent of reports that the Labels are intentionally withholding drm-free songs from iTunes in a pointless effort to weaken Apple's position? "

Yes, I am aware of that...but why not have a coalition of companies that are like minded turn the  tables? Like I said, I think that the digital age of music distribution is mature enough for htat to happen.

I do agree with you regarding subscription based services. I love having the freedom to download as much as I and my family want and refreshing our players often. I wouldn't call them failures, though...I would say that they are not as successful as iTunes is at this time, but that does not make them failures. That is a bit of a fanboy attitude.

--tayme

@tayme

I think Apple is doing everything they can (and more than anyone else) in pushing back on the labels for low prices and no DRM.  We can only know what's going on behind the scenes.  I think the fact is that iTunes DRM is not enough of a problem for enough people for Apple to move in the direction you're suggesting and boycott DRM labels.  I suggest you read up on Doug Morris and Universal to get a little perspective on the people Jobs has to content with.  This guy makes it seems like hurting iTunes is more important than selling music.  Think about how irrational that is.

As for subscription... they're a great idea, but they're certainly not a market success.  And the simple reason for that is that iTunes doesn't do it.  iTunes got huge because the iPod is dominant.  Now, that iTunes has clout in its own right and is the default place for people to go for digital media.  It's reinforced by the ecosystem from co-promotion on TV to iTunes tags in HD radio.

So you may have tiny patches of subscription music with Zune, or Yahoo, or Rapsody... but until Apple does it, it simply can't be mainstream because it can't play on the iPod.  But they're a natural fit.  People subscribe to TV, radio, magazines... they'll subscribe to music.

"Everyone knows that the Labels are trying to weaken iTunes by withholding the tracks."

Now you're trying to make it the labels fault because you are a blind Apple-loving one-note hack.

There.  That's better.

"Satellite radio is a different beast..."

Just like DRM is OK for video, but not for audio, eh?

"and even that is still a relatively small user base compared to the iPod alone."

But satellite radio subscribers all have to pay.  I guess that's where DRM is OK for audio then too, hmm?  Your argument means nothing, because the ratio of legitimate music downloaders to iPod purchasers is actually quite small (much less than satellite radio subscribers).

"It's so trivial to remove the DRM through burning a disc that it's simply a non-issue."

Then why bother putting the DRM in there in the first place?....Because Jobs is bending over backwards (or is that forwards?) to have his cake and eat it too.

"Movie and TV sales have been tiny compared to the iPod user base (not even close to 1 show/movie per ipod)."

WRONG!  As I mentioned (sarcastically, since you didn't seem to understand that) that DVD sales were amazing up until people were diving into P2P and Bittorrent sites.  Legitimate digital distribution (via iTunes) did nothing for it.

"How does this make Steve Jobs dishonest?"

Making FairPlay interoperable would make him eat his words.  The rest of the music industry accepted PlaysForSure's open architecture across many different devices, online systems, and applications.  Jobs-O kept FairPlay to himself to sell more iPods.  If they can't open up the DRM to competition and continue to sell iPods on their own merit, then it'll make a liar out of him.  He's not willing to take that chance though, so honesty is not something he wears on his turtleneck these days.

"What's your point?"

Clearly, sarcasm is lost on you, much like the rest of the discussion.

Pingback from  Bittorrent » re: Put Windows Live on your Windows Mobile phone

Pingback from  Bittorrent » Bittorrent ?? re: Put Windows Live on your Windows Mobile phone

Pingback from  Bittorrent » Bittorrent ?? Bittorrent ?? re: Put Windows Live on your Windows…

"Now you're trying to make it the labels fault because you are a blind Apple-loving one-note hack."

- Why aren't you capable of giving Apple any credit at all ever, Waethorn?  Why?  Jobs came out against DRM in music.  Doug Morris of Universal, far-and-away the largest label, has made it clear that he wants to break Apple's dominance with everything shy of withdrawing the library from the store (since that would clearly cause a shareholder revolt and boot his butt outta there). DRM-free going to Amazon first is not Apple's fault.  That is an objective fact and yet you're incapable of conceding this basic point.

"Your argument means nothing, because the ratio of legitimate music downloaders to iPod purchasers is actually quite small"

- Thanks for blowing a truck-sized hole in your own fallacious "lock-in" argument.  Of course. The average iPod has something like three albums of iTunes store music out of it's 4 to 160 gigs.  There is NO ITUNES LOCK-IN.  Thanks for the flip-flop.

"Then why bother putting the DRM in there in the first place?....Because Jobs is bending over backwards (or is that forwards?) to have his cake and eat it too."

- I really think you might be a complete idiot.  Because the labels contractually demand it.  Again.  For the millionth time.

"WRONG!  As I mentioned (sarcastically, since you didn't seem to understand that) that DVD sales were amazing up until people were diving into P2P and Bittorrent sites.  Legitimate digital distribution (via iTunes) did nothing for it."

- Um... can you read?  I was saying that iTunes is selling a trivial amount of video content.  I guess when you actually agree with me, you  have to pretend I said the EXACT OPPOSITE in order to disagree.  

"Making FairPlay interoperable would make him eat his words."

- except of course that Microsoft couldn't even get it to work and abandoned it for the closed Zune... and there isn't a single WMA store that support the mac.

"Jobs-O kept FairPlay to himself to sell more iPods."

- Nope.  He did it in order to make sure it works and your music doesn't lose it's authorization before that 10 hour flight the way playsforsure was doing to people....Oh... and Microsoft closed their DRM with the Zune FOR THE SAME REASON.  How do you explain that?

"Clearly, sarcasm is lost on you"

- Nope.  I get the sarcasm.  I guess you're arguing that all video should be DRM-free because of kids movies?  There's some truth there so if you were capable of having a real discussion with a mac user and TV exec, we could explore that.  But I've tried for so long now and you seem to be simply incapable of it.  Instead, you just like to get your jollies off of these sad "gotchas" that are usually way off.  Not always, but often.  What a shame and a waste of a good forum.

Pingback from  Bittorrent » Bittorrent ?? Bittorrent ?? Bittorrent ?? re: Put Windows Live on …

@jp - "And the simple reason for that is that iTunes doesn't do it"

So then, the reason that OS X is not the number 1 OS is that MS didn't do it? Using your flawed theory, that is what you are saying. You see, a statement like that is very fanboyish.

--tayme

"the reason that OS X is not the number 1 OS is that MS didn't do "

Tayme... you don't understand.

Your analogy is fundamentally flawed.  The right analogy would be that Internet Explorer dominates because it's tied to Windows, which has 95% marketshare just as iTunes dominate because it's tied to the iPod.

iTunes dominates because it's the iPod's store.  If he Zune had 70%+ marketshare, Zune marketplace would dominate digital downloads.  That's pretty obvious.

Therefore, since over 70% of all digial music players are iPods, any music service that isn't iPod-compatible simply doesn't have much of a market.

This is pretty simple logic, here.  Not partisan hackery.  Like I said, I think subscriptions are a great idea and I hope Apple includes a service with iTunes soon.

"The right analogy would be that Internet Explorer dominates because it's tied to Windows"

That's funny.

Funny because even though Safari comes with OS X, most people in their right mind will tell you it's a PoS, and use Firefox instead.  I guess that shoots your theory all to hell....

A Classically illogical response that's also a complete dodge of the conversation.

It's indisputable fact that Internet Explorer gained dominance through it's bundling with Windows.  My point was very simple, but since you're a partisan drone, all you're capable of doing is indiscriminately bashing anything Apple does.

It's just so pathetic.

"It's indisputable fact that Internet Explorer gained dominance through it's bundling with Windows.  My point was very simple, but since you're a partisan drone, all you're capable of doing is indiscriminately bashing anything Apple does."

Internet Explorer may have gained some marketshare because OEM's were forced to include it, but the real reason Netscape went after Microsoft is because the web browser was the basis for their whole revenue stream.  Netscape felt threatened.  IE wasn't bundled until later after Netscape started giving away their browser, in response to Microsoft doing the same, from the start.  In the meantime, Microsoft had aggressively marketed Windows as something new - an Internet-enabled OS, which is what garnered sales, and locked Microsoft into the top of the OS segment.

Conversely, if you look at Apple, they are their own OEM, and they always include Safari, and yet Safari still isn't used as much as Firefox is on the Mac.  The whole bundling argument has completely been debunked.

The real reason why IE gained dominance is because the competition was charging for a product that Microsoft gave away for free.  Trying to bash Microsoft for business practises that are good for their shareholders, while trying to defend Apple for the same thing clearly demonstrates that you are a one-sided fanboy troll.

"Trying to bash Microsoft for business practises that are good for their shareholders, while trying to defend Apple for the same thing clearly demonstrates that you are a one-sided fanboy troll."

No, it just shows how you know absolutely nothing about economics or law.  Microsoft is and was a monopoly.  Apple never was even close to being one for their OS.  Microsoft's bundling was illegal because of the monopoly.  It's distribution for free is called "price dumping".

The fact that Microsoft instantly abandoned improvement to IE as soon as total dominance was achieved and only resumed development a half-decade later is proof of the destructive force that monopoly has on innovation.

"Netscape felt threatened"

Microsoft felt threatened and so they killed netscape using methods proven to be illegal in a court of law through abuse of their monopoly.  How would you feel if Rogers began giving away PCs for free?  How would that affect your business.  I'm talking about the same exact PCs you sell, being given away for free and subsidized by their internet/tv monopoly.  Are you starting to get it through your granite-thick skull?

Go get your sorry, ignorant butt some education about history and economics before you this debate again.

"Conversely, if you look at Apple, they are their own OEM, and they always include Safari, and yet Safari still isn't used as much as Firefox is on the Mac"

WHAT?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...  Where did you come up with THAT?  That is 100%, unequivocally FALSE.  A complete and utter LIE.  TOTAL LIE.  

Either come up with hard numbers for this statement, or you're a liar.  I assume you can't explain this:

marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx

Safari having almost 6% overall worldwide share alone make your statement an obvious lie.

Pingback from  Microsoft  » Blog Archive   » re: Put Windows Live on your Windows Mobile phone

"Apple never was even close to being one for their OS."

No, but they were - once.  They will never be again though.  They currently are a monopoly in the online consumer media distribution market though, and the lock-in with the iPod is obvious.

"It's distribution for free is called "price dumping"."

Actually, it's called "predatory pricing".  "Price dumping" is something that you do to a foreign market to suffocate the local competition.

"The fact that Microsoft instantly abandoned improvement to IE as soon as total dominance was achieved and only resumed development a half-decade later is proof of the destructive force that monopoly has on innovation."

LOL!  That's the LAMEST excuse I've ever heard.  Firefox came from near nothingness, and yet Microsoft hardly stopped the innovation that came from it.  Microsoft found that the market was satisfied with what they offered, and indeed early versions of Firefox were just sad.

"How would you feel if Rogers began giving away PCs for free?  How would that affect your business.  I'm talking about the same exact PCs you sell, being given away for free and subsidized by their internet/tv monopoly."

You mean like Telus and Bell already do?  I've talked to exactly 1 person that considered one, compared the specs to what I offer, and then considered the subsidy premium, and they ended up buying a more expensive computer from me.  The subsidy premium actually makes the system very expensive to buy outright.  I don't even offer financing myself, but the systems that they offer are just weak, budget machines that are overpriced.

"marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx

Ok so here's a few questions for you:

Do you honestly believe that 6% is representative of only Mac users worldwide even though market research shows it as being half of that?  Conversely, do you believe that 6%, which is representative of US Mac marketshare, makes up the same percentage of total Mac users online out of the entire computer industry?  Do you believe that a good chunk of that percentage isn't just Windows users that had Safari thrust upon them from the previous months Apple Software Update bundling?  Do you think that analysts that say that Apple's malware bundling of Safari is a primary cause, are in fact, wrong?  Did you retrieve those results using a free account to NetApps, not being able to see the differences by OS?

If you answered "yes" to any of those questions, you're a bigger tool then I thought.