Of course Microsoft should be allowed to decide which software does and does not run on their operating system. It's their operating system. A conscientious consumer, meanwhile, is free to not use Microsoft's products if this offends them. You know, they might even think about using an alternative operating system. I remember hearing about one somewhere...
I don't pretend to be an expert, but can it be a coincidence that this was around the same time the World Wide Web was really gaining popularity? Your problem can't really be that there is a limited range of options when it comes to media, because this is the exact opposite of reality. In fact, between terrestrial and satellite radio, cable television, portable electronics, and the web there are more forms of media, and more ways to view them, than ever before. Your problem seems to be with big corporations, and to be fair, you don't really hide this. You won't believe me when I tell you this, but there is actually nothing inherently wrong with a few big companies owning the media. As I've just proved to you, it doesn't stifle innovation and has in fact resulted in more choices for the consumer. This is getting a bit more philosophical than I wanted, but I feel like if I could convince you that your dislike for big corporations is irrational, I would have accomplished something today. Would it help if I told you that corporations were not that different from the rest of us: self-interested entities trying to procure to greatest benefit for themselves? I would agree with you if you had simply stated that we shouldn't trust big companies necessarily, or that we shouldn't let them take away our freedoms. But I think you are wrong if you believe the reverse is acceptable.
