Look at the sanctions imposed on Microsoft by the European Union over Windows Media Player being included in Windows. Nearly two years after they forced the creation of WMP-free "N" versions, not one major manufacturer has decided it's in their best interests to license it. Why? Only a few want it! It's one thing if it wasn't possible to set another media player as the default application and there was a mass demand for a WMP-free version, but the EU seemed more interested in flexing their muscles than making a difference.

In the case of the desktop search, I support the 'compromise' Microsoft has come up with. If you want to use a different desktop search that's your prerogative, and should have been an option from the start. However, forcing Microsoft to design the OS to enhance the performance of a competing product? Last I checked it was Google's product that they are supposed to design to work with the OS, not the other way around. As long as Microsoft hasn't designed Vista to specifically throttle Google's performance, it's on Google to make their product better, not Microsoft.

I wonder what's next. Shall we sue Microsoft for bundling Internet Explorer as opposed to Firefox or Opera, Windows Sidebar as opposed to Yahoo! Widgets, or the new PC backup as opposed to Norton Ghost? Personally, I believe everyone's simply getting to greedy and looking to sue anyone if they think they can talk their way through it. (Remember the lady who sued McDonald's because she spilled hot coffee on herself? I never knew coffee was hot! Plain ) If it continues they'll end up forcing Microsoft to relabel Windows 3.0 Windows Vista because there won't be a new feature left in the 'reduced' version.

Just my little rant for the day.
John