Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> I call BS. Microsoft hardly forces anyone to write programs that just
> run on Windows; everybody just decides that they won't support other
> OSes. The could if they wanted.
Sadly that's simply not true. The vast majority of hardware and software
manufacturers can *not* abandon Windows and start making software for
other platforms instead. It would be an economical suicide.
In the majority of cases making the software for Windows *and* other
platforms is not cost-effective enough. If the Windows version brings 99.5%
of the money and the other versions the remaining 0.5%, it's certainly not
worth the money and resources spent porting the software to those other
It's *not* a choice. They *have* to make Windows software if they want
to stay in business. (Sure, there are exceptions, but those are few. We
are talking about the average hardware/software house here, not the few
This simply gives Microsoft a monopoly status. They can dictate how and
what those manufacturers do. If Microsoft says "for the new version of
Windows all software must use DRM or Windows will refuse to run it" then
they have no choice but to add DRM to their software or it will not sell.
Microsoft might not be "guilty" for being so popular (although some
could argue against that), but that doesn't change the fact that abusing
monopoly status is illegal in most countries.
A good example: Apple cannot be considered "guilty" of being so popular
in the mp3 player business. However, that doesn't mean they can start
abusing their enormous monopoly however they like. This was clearly seen
when the EU sued Apple for abusing their monopoly status (related to DRM
protection which basically gave Apple unfair competition over other
One could think that "it's their product, they can do whatever they
like with it". Even though that's true in small-scale applications, that's
not how fair trade works at the big scale. Monopoly and cartel laws exist
for a reason.
Post a reply to this message