5 ms·
Supplying stuff "for free" (particularly as part of a bundle with expensive stuff that you have a monopoly on) to undermine your competitors is a pretty central
by mjw1007 9y ago
Supplying stuff "for free" (particularly as part of a bundle with expensive stuff that you have a monopoly on) to undermine your competitors is a pretty central example of the sort of behaviour that anti-trust law is there to prevent. It's an extreme case of predatory pricing.
I agree that it's odd to see such a case when the competitor's product is also free, though.
Opera used a pay-to-remove-the-ads model around that time, but I don't know if Netscape ever considered doing so.
- Nomentatus 9y agoThe legal term is "bundling." If multiple companies are doing, it, even in the same niche, it's an awfully sure sign that the laws haven't been enforced in a long while.
- WalterBright 9y agoI never understood how throwing in a free browser was detrimental to me. The kerfluffle over uninstalling it was irrelevant, too. Don't like it? Don't use it. It wasn't necessary to uninstall it. So what if it sits there on the disk. I don't use probably 90% of Windows/Linux/OSX, but it doesn't disturb me that they sit on the disk. I currently have both Chrome and Explorer installed on my Windows box. Sometimes I use one, sometimes the other. So what.
- zaarn 9y agoThat's you. Most people simply use what comes with the operating system given no other choice.
- WalterBright 9y agoWindows also came with a media player. Should that be illegal, too?
- zaarn 9y agoThere is actually a mediaplayer-less option, so it's probably not much of a problem. On the other hand, if there wasn't such an option, the EU would probably eventually get complaints from commercial mediaplayer vendors if the WMP gets an unfairly high marketshare and yes, in that case it should be "illegal" too.
- Nomentatus 9y agoNo competition, less progress, higher prices in time. We're halfway to corporate feudalism as it is, and competition is way down.