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?

Make it so that all Office programs except for Microsoft Office and a couple inferior higher priced products are all that's available?

Etc.

Microsoft should have no power over 3rd party hardware or software.  It's really ridiculious that Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony do legally when you consider videogame systems are more or less just really specialized computers.

What do you mean?   Saw the edit

That is a good question :)

this

And also regarding that van, selling faulty products is illegal anyway. They should pay for it.

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?

i hope m$ wins this and never allows their products on the xbox systems again. go m$ :)

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.

You are comparing an operating system with hardware... Microsofts OS is mostly open so pretty much anyone can make programs for them.  This is fine because you use the OS to RUN other companies hardware AND software.  On a console, you get the hardware and OS from the same company and it is NOT open even in the slightest.  They are completely different markets and products.

It would be fair game for hardware developers to stop making hardware that supported Windows, yes.  That would be the comparison you are looking for, not software vs hardware....