noisetonepause wrote:M. Bréqs wrote:I'm not convinced... I see no real threat. The market will naturally gravitate towards interoperability.
Is that why 95% of sites (including our national television here, which I'm forced to finance via a 'media license' despite no compatible player existing for my platform) use Windows Media where cross platform alternatives exist? Or why I routinely have to reply to e-mails with a 'sorry, I can't read Office documents' cos people just attach .docs or .xls where alternatives exist? Or why I can't access several sites because they're based on Flash where it's not necessary (eg. youtube)?
-Paws
I assume you use a Mac. If that's the case, then I think you've just proven my point. Apple is the rogue holdout that until recently has stuck with proprietary formats, while the rest of the computing world (at least the vast majority) have adopted a format that is approaching universality. The problems you have described are the very problems that plague closed systems.
Besides, Apple computers can now run XP. Again, the trend towards interoperability is even creeping in there. It's inevitable, really.
Besides, you can buy office for Mac. I used to own it myself. If you choose not to, then that's your choice to not use a format that is approaching universality. I know for a fact that
www.openoffice.org works wonderfully (I use it myself now that I'm on a PC) and even Word Perfect will open .doc files.
So, all the doom-saying aside: It would simply be business suicide to offer an internet service that gives out preferential bandwidth to certain sites / services. The competing internet service who offers access to 100% of the internet at a resonable speed would simply dominate. Look at the fortunes of AOL - they've had to seriously diversify their operations. Their internet service is not their big money-maker anymore, and they're losing customers to other service providers. Consumers hate restrictions (even if they don't directly affect them).
Again, what's the big deal?