Heath Stewart wrote: Most modern players have such association managers built right in and also have options to maintain those associations if they are "lost". Winamp has had this since the beginning and WMP, Real, and QT all have it now. Whichever one gets installed last and used last will win. Technically speaking, yes. Unfortunately, those are not useable from the user standpoint. It's obvious that everyone clicks ok at this point. Something you have also forgotten to mention is that pretty much any media related software (not only players of course, this also includes net downloaders, P2P software, cd burners, ...) that you install tries to redefine that, including the little cd burner you installed last week. I am not talking about you here, only referring to a scenario where, OH MY, someone installs a non-Microsoft software. If you are not convinced yet of how bad the situation is these days... Heath Stewart wrote: I - and many other developers - think it's a great way of writing component-based software - pretty much the whole point of COM. Why re-write something so non-trivial every time you need such a component. This one truely sucks. In addition, you completely missed the point, answering on technicalities although this post is about monopoly related bundling strategies. I have nothing against component software of course. But when it comes to a point that the only way for a player app to work reliably on Windows is to assume the windows media player is installed, I think it falls short in many ways. First and foremost, it means you are ready to take all the bugs for you. Let's get it clear, bugs related to media players, especially with the myriad of player versions out there, are by the thousands. Does it play nice when all you need is say a video renderer or a MP3 player. Take the video renderer, why not rely on DirectShow instead? It's bundled on the OS since Windows 98 and cannot be removed. Of course, a better scenario is to link against a third party .lib/.dll that will allow your software to manage more flexible scenarios (cross-platform for instance, especially when it comes to media related software). Heath Stewart wrote: There aren't many good HTML rendering libs out there, and the WebBrowser control is easy to embed, extend, and manipulate. Ever try doing that with Gecko? One word, htmllite.dll. If you don't know about this one, lookup codeproject. The irony with htmllite.dll is