4 ms·

Noticeably absent from this discussion: Microsoft's attempts to kill Quicktime(amongst a range of competitor technologies), and their reasonable success in thes

by quitit 5y ago

Noticeably absent from this discussion: Microsoft's attempts to kill Quicktime(amongst a range of competitor technologies), and their reasonable success in these pursuit. Relevant excerpt: Microsoft Threatens QuickTime Partners In addition to providing roadblocks to QuickTime running on Windows, Microsoft also worked to stop QuickTime by threatening its partners to abandon licensing, distribution, or development of anything related to QuickTime, or else prepare to face the retribution Microsoft could deliver. Hardware: Microsoft leaned on its Windows PC OEMs to prevent them from bundling QuickTime; trial testimony revealed specifically how Microsoft took quick steps to block Compaq's licensing of QuickTime. While Compaq was enthusiastic about licensing QuickTime to help differentiate its PCs from those of rivals, after Microsoft heard about the plans and expressed its disapproval, the company suddenly withdrew and refused to continue any talks with Apple. Applications: Microsoft also jumped on Avid Cinema, a new consumer video editing product based on QuickTime that long time Apple partner Avid was preparing to release. Microsoft told Avid engineers, "You need to rip QuickTime out of your product if you want to be in this channel." Months later, Avid announced a partnership with Microsoft on its new AAF format for multimedia authoring. Drivers: Microsoft also pounced on Truevision, a video capture card vendor. After learning that the company was developing QuickTime drivers for its video capture cards, Microsoft invested in the company with the proviso that the company could not market, brand, or refer to the drivers as a QuickTime driver, and could only bundle them with a specific application, not offer the drivers for sale separately. Advanced Authoring Format Microsoft had backed up its threats to jump into the media authoring business to kill QuickTime entirely by developing the Advanced Authoring Format, the last missing component of Microsoft's rival offerings. In June 1998, Microsoft advised Apple that its only remaining choice in the matter would be to agree to a broad technology sharing plan that donated its technology to Microsoft and abandoned its own competitive efforts: •Apple had to agree to cross-license its codecs and collaborate with Microsoft on all future codec development •Apple had to adopt Microsoft's DirectX run-time platform on Windows in place of QuickTime •Apple had to adopt Microsoft's proprietary streaming technology •Apple had to adopt Microsoft's new proprietary AAF file format for media authoring http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/5F0C866C-6DDF-4A9A-9515-531B0CA0C29C.html http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/5F0C866C-6DD...

Gunax 5y ago
MS really came too early. What they should have done is have an app store, only allow users to receive software via the pipe they control, and disallow anything that challenges them, a la Apple with Firefox or Google with youtube-dl.
- quitit 5y ago
  Oh so Xbox Live?
  - Gunax 5y ago
    Yes! Basically, I find the distinction between 'computer' and 'device' (using the common parlance) troublesome. The control that manufacturers have in phones and consoles would be appalling if done in a general computer, but I find the distinction meaningless.
    - quitit 5y ago
      Why can't we let device makers choose that for themselves? While iOS has a streamlined application and approval process for apps, it's still an application and approval process. On the other hand Windows, macOS and similar do not have this requirement to run software on those platforms. To me that's a meaningful distinction. It seems like there is a desire out there to turn iOS into macOS through government lobbying - I can see both sides to that discussion, but I have various arguments for why this would be a mistake for actual end users, whose experience I hold above developers' wishes for new business opportunities. The targeting of a popular platform this way is killing the golden goose. Certain greedy types are spearheading initiatives that will harm small developers and the platform for the sole benefit of bigger players. Consumers don't want to fuss with stores or hand their payment details over to an unknown 3rd party, we've seen it with digital magazine/news/music/content subscriptions, we've seen it with premium SMS, we've seen it with an endless parade of scam apps and services online. We even see it offline with gym memberships, scam-charities and again magazine/newspaper subscriptions. The escrow-model of the AppStore and Google Play lets consumers ignore the trust issues in handing over their banking/CC details. If suddenly the only way you can get non-Apple or non-Google services is to give your bank or credit card details to an unknown, that is going to result in trust problems eventually turning away consumers from online purchasing, plus obvious fraud issues at the credit-card or bank level, and a shift in developers having to rely on ad-supported "free" apps, because consumers are wary of purchasing directly. "But a developer could just use IAP?!!?11" - sure they could, but now they can't compete with incumbents like Spotify who would have an unfair margin advantage, since they're well known and considered trustworthy. The likes of Spotify are then able to use their better margins to undercut smaller players who would need to use IAP for trust reasons, plus smaller operators will not be able to attain comparable rates with a payment processor. I.E. Start-ups or small operators get screwed by this. All up, this is the tip of the iceberg. Going for iOS is easy because one can frame a bunch of "open competition" arguments since the platform takes on the appearance of a general computing platform. However once the laws are in, you can bet it'll be used to crack open every kind of closed model (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Kindle, etc) to the sole benefit of large incumbents that wish to exist as parasites to popular platforms. Meanwhile the consumer doesn't get anything new out of this, they don't get better competition nor cheaper prices, but they now have to watch out for fraud and malware.

by quitit 5y ago

Gunax 5y ago

MS really came too early. What they should have done is have an app store, only allow users to receive software via the pipe they control, and disallow anything that challenges them, a la Apple with Firefox or Google with youtube-dl.

quitit 5y ago
Oh so Xbox Live?
- Gunax 5y ago
  Yes! Basically, I find the distinction between 'computer' and 'device' (using the common parlance) troublesome. The control that manufacturers have in phones and consoles would be appalling if done in a general computer, but I find the distinction meaningless.
  - quitit 5y ago
    Why can't we let device makers choose that for themselves? While iOS has a streamlined application and approval process for apps, it's still an application and approval process. On the other hand Windows, macOS and similar do not have this requirement to run software on those platforms. To me that's a meaningful distinction. It seems like there is a desire out there to turn iOS into macOS through government lobbying - I can see both sides to that discussion, but I have various arguments for why this would be a mistake for actual end users, whose experience I hold above developers' wishes for new business opportunities. The targeting of a popular platform this way is killing the golden goose. Certain greedy types are spearheading initiatives that will harm small developers and the platform for the sole benefit of bigger players. Consumers don't want to fuss with stores or hand their payment details over to an unknown 3rd party, we've seen it with digital magazine/news/music/content subscriptions, we've seen it with premium SMS, we've seen it with an endless parade of scam apps and services online. We even see it offline with gym memberships, scam-charities and again magazine/newspaper subscriptions. The escrow-model of the AppStore and Google Play lets consumers ignore the trust issues in handing over their banking/CC details. If suddenly the only way you can get non-Apple or non-Google services is to give your bank or credit card details to an unknown, that is going to result in trust problems eventually turning away consumers from online purchasing, plus obvious fraud issues at the credit-card or bank level, and a shift in developers having to rely on ad-supported "free" apps, because consumers are wary of purchasing directly. "But a developer could just use IAP?!!?11" - sure they could, but now they can't compete with incumbents like Spotify who would have an unfair margin advantage, since they're well known and considered trustworthy. The likes of Spotify are then able to use their better margins to undercut smaller players who would need to use IAP for trust reasons, plus smaller operators will not be able to attain comparable rates with a payment processor. I.E. Start-ups or small operators get screwed by this. All up, this is the tip of the iceberg. Going for iOS is easy because one can frame a bunch of "open competition" arguments since the platform takes on the appearance of a general computing platform. However once the laws are in, you can bet it'll be used to crack open every kind of closed model (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Kindle, etc) to the sole benefit of large incumbents that wish to exist as parasites to popular platforms. Meanwhile the consumer doesn't get anything new out of this, they don't get better competition nor cheaper prices, but they now have to watch out for fraud and malware.