mrstickball said:
I thought the basic principle of law was that everyone had to abide by it, and not just some? It doesn't make sense when they are writing rules that one, and only one, company needs to follow. Xoj - That wasn't the point. The point was that it would be a bad idea if Sony was forced to include 3rd party games. |
that's another thing, even when sony owned over 70% of marketshare they supported all third party, actually would take a bullet from their third party, they saved square soft from death with the spirith within.
and never ran problems besides some people suing due patents about rumble.
microsoft been to is monolopy practices,EU it's aware of that.
remove gif support from image viewer, lack of a real uninstallation of IE and WMP, are burden to third party to success, like or not, people generally stays with whats bundled, while it works for what they want to do even if all the competition it's better at every single aspect (security, speed, reliability and standards).
that's only a few things, they also give "incentives" to goverments to choose windows over "free" alternatives such as red hat, debian, ubuntu.
even if the requirement it's just PC that runs web browser and word editor.
goverments and public entities must support competition, and thats must as LAW, you can buy from HP or Dell only, you must look around for alternatives and have from each brand it strong points and weakness.
competition helps the country because companies are forced to slash prices to stay competitive and consumers get a better quality product at a cheaper price.







