twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:
dsister44 said:
Kasz216 said:
dsister44 said:
I think that Microsoft should have the right to moderate which products should be used for the Xbox. They can't stop all 3rd party merchandise, but they can stop some. Some of the 3rd party stuff needs to be stopped. Look at the Nyko intercooler. It is dangerous and caused several RRoDs. I bought a 3rd party fan that plugs into the the back USB. Two weeks later the back USB stopped working. Microsoft said that the fan did it through faulty wiring(they could have easily lied to me)
And I figured that that link you posted had something to do with monopolies. >.> Couldn't read a word of it
|
So why shouldn't microsoft be able decide what products can be used on Windows then?
|
What do you mean?
|
Saying what can and can't be used on the 360 is identical to saying Microsoft should be able to decide what programs and accessories could be used for a Windows computer.
Which is why it's ridiculious in the first place that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo get away with what they do.
Imagine a windows where every Office program and accessory has to be approved by microsoft. You don't see where they get an unfair advantage their?
That power itself is what constitutes a monopoly. Not just them having sole ownership of the market.
Otherwise they could eaisly just liscense only Microsoft Office, and Bob's Office, an office tool create by bob that's 3 times the cost and barely works.
Etc.
Videogame systems are basically just specialized PCs... espiecally the 360.
The fact that microsoft gets to control on 360 but not windows is not congruent.
Liscensing fees and the like really shouldn't exist, and don't on the PC. The fact that they don't for computers... but do for slightly more specialized computers is mindboggling from a legal position.,, and only exists because of favoritism.
|
See, saying what you're saying though is like saying we should be able to have other options for the Xbox dashboard when that just isn't the case.
This is MS's game console and they can allow whatever they want to work or not work on it. It's up to them. It doesn't matter if it screws over another company, it's their own fault for making an unlicensed product.
You can argue all day whether that is morally right or wrong or if it creates some sort of monopoly but it in the end it doesn't matter and it doesn't even matter what country you're in. It is Microsoft's console and they can update it as they see fit.
If you don't want that update, dont' take the update but then you cannot sign onto MS's network-- it's that simple.
|
So... Windows is Microsofts operating system.
Are they free to do with it whatever they want?
Would it be fair game if they updated Windows to brick Firefox, Opera, Google Chrome and every other internet browser not IE until those internet browser companies started paying liscensing fees?
|
This is the problem I was getting at-- you're comparing apples to oranges.
A game console is not a PC. No, Microsoft Windows should not block Mozilla but Windows is a completely different entity.
Again, it's Microsoft's game console, they can do what they want it. Additionally, it's their network, they can do what they want with it. If they want to give you an update that allows only licensed software to run on it, so be it. That said, you do not have to take that update, but if you don't, they don't have to let you on their network.
This really isn't a hard concept to understand and I dont' know why people are actually arguing this.
|
Because it's the exact same thing. A game console is a PC. A much more specialized PC... but a PC none the less.
|
That's like calling my TV, Car, and anything else with a circuit board a PC. No, they are different things.
It is fair to say consoles are derived from PC's but they are not PC's.
|
With TVs, Cars and anything else with a circuit board... you still don't grant the original producer a "closed system right".
There is no logical reason why videogame systems should have closed system rights for a product they've sold to a consumer anymore then they should have the right to block out products they don't like through their OS.
It's an identical actual situation.
