Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Mar 2006 18:10 UTC, submitted by helgegrimm
Windows The European Commission said on Wednesday it told Microsoft that it had competition worries about the firm's new operating system, Vista, another antitrust concern that the software giant must answer in Europe. "We are concerned about the possibility that the next Vista operating system will include various elements which are currently available separately from Microsoft or other companies," Commission spokesman Jonathan Todd said. More here. My take: Enough already. Seriously.
Order by: Score:
Fair's fair
by Jamie on Wed 29th Mar 2006 18:19 UTC
Jamie
Member since:
2005-07-06

Given the monoploistic damage done by MS beforehand was irrepairable, it is very heartening that the EU will take a more proactive role in preventing further abuses rather than waiting for years after the event before taking action with fines (too little too late rings a bell here).

No one can complain this is unfair and it would be better if all new products from any convicted monopolist were scrutinised in advance of their release to protect innovation and ensure fair competition.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Fair's fair
by Tom K on Wed 29th Mar 2006 18:25 UTC in reply to "Fair's fair"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

I wonder if you would be singing the same tune if the "convicted monopolist" in the EU was Red Hat/Novell/SuSE.

:-)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Fair's fair
by chemical_scum on Wed 29th Mar 2006 18:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Fair's fair"
chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

I wonder if you would be singing the same tune if the "convicted monopolist" in the EU was Red Hat/Novell/SuSE.

If they behaved the same way as MS then I would support the EC's action. If RH got into an effective monopoly position for enterprise Linux it could too adopt illegal anti-competitive measures.

Reply Score: 5

Cant make a monopoly with GNU/Linux
by Moulinneuf on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Fair's fair"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

One cannot make a monopoly with anything GNU/Linux. You would know that if you begun to understand the meaning and value and inteligence behind it.

Reply Score: 4

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

You certainly can have a monopoly with linuxm if every OEM started installing RH by default on new PCs, then very soon they would have a monopoly, and they would make a killing on support calls, a monopoly is a company that holds a massive majority in a certain market, just because the business model is different does not mean they could not have a monopoly

Reply Score: 1

DKR Member since:
2005-08-22

You certainly can have a monopoly with linuxm if every OEM started installing RH by default on new PCs, then very soon they would have a monopoly, and they would make a killing on support calls, a monopoly is a company that holds a massive majority in a certain market, just because the business model is different does not mean they could not have a monopoly

Though this could become very possible, I do not see the interoperability issue erupting from the Linux vendors as it has with Microsoft and their partners.

Reply Score: 2

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

What do you not get with : Cant make a monopoly with GNU/Linux. To make a monopoly you have to be the only provider or the only one allowed to provide it or the only one allowed to legally work on it or modify it.
There is no legal way for Red Hat to stop anyone from working on it , modifying it and even make copy of it all of this legally or replace it with there own version. Thats the point of GNU/Linux.

Reply Score: 3

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Actually not, because it's perfectly legal to fork it.

Reply Score: 2

Domin Member since:
2005-07-10

Technology monocultre is not the same thing as monopoly.
Back in the day there was Unix technology monoculture in some market segments, but none of the supporting companies held real monopoly.

Reply Score: 1

Deletomn Member since:
2005-07-06

Moulinneuf: One cannot make a monopoly with anything GNU/Linux. You would know that if you begun to understand the meaning and value and inteligence behind it.

A company that "sells" Linux can have a monopoly. It can have 4 different kinds that I'm aware of...

1) A hardware monopoly. If they sell computers with Linux preinstalled and push all other Linux computer manufacturers out of business, then they have a monopoly.

2) A services monopoly. If they sell services for Linux and push all other companies that offer services for Linux out of business, then they have a monopoly.

3) A publication monopoly. If they sell magazines or books for Linux and push all other companies that offer such things for Linux out of business, then they have a monopoly.

4) An OS monopoly (Like Microsoft). When creating a Linux distribution, you are not required to make all programs open source/free software. Any additional software you include that is not, could help establish the monopoly. For example, suppose Novell comes out with a Linux distribution that has awesome and easy to use drivers for every piece of hardware on the planet (unrealistic I know, but suppose they do) and you aren't allowed to give these drivers to other people, so they are tied to Novell's Linux distribution. That would give Novell a significant advantage. It could also give Novell a monopoly in the area of Linux distributions.

In addition Linux can establish a "monopoly all by itself", by becoming so widespread that all competitors (Windows, FreeBSD, MacOS, etc...) die off. While no individual company would have a monopoly per se, Linux would be.

Reply Score: 2

Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

A company that "sells" Linux can have a monopoly. It can have 4 different kinds that I'm aware of...

No she can't, but you sure try a lot to spout nonsense. Let's remember here that we're talking about, I quote you, a company that "sells" Linux.

1) A hardware monopoly. If they sell computers with Linux preinstalled and push all other Linux computer manufacturers out of business, then they have a monopoly

First nonsense : you have to now say they sell computers, but you just said the company sells Linux !!!!
Distros don't sell hardware, so in no way can they have a hardware monopoly. There already are some hardware vendors and computer vendors.
Amazingly enough, you think of distro vendors as being able to make a monopoly on hardware, more than current hardware vendors.

2) A services monopoly. If they sell services for Linux and push all other companies that offer services for Linux out of business, then they have a monopoly

They still won't have a monopoly on service. What you say is just pure nonsense. Lots of companies sell hardware and are the only ones able to offer service for their hardware. They still have no services monopoly. This just does not mean anything. That's the 2nd nonsense.

3) A publication monopoly. If they sell magazines or books for Linux and push all other companies that offer such things for Linux out of business, then they have a monopoly

Distros vendors do not control publication, so they can not put magazines, or books out of business. If anybody can understand what putting a magazine or book out of business mean. Apart from blocking their publication, I fail to see how it's possible anyway. Pushing the BS a bit far.

4) An OS monopoly (Like Microsoft). When creating a Linux distribution, you are not required to make all programs open source/free software. Any additional software you include that is not, could help establish the monopoly. For example, suppose Novell comes out with a Linux distribution that has awesome and easy to use drivers for every piece of hardware on the planet (unrealistic I know, but suppose they do) and you aren't allowed to give these drivers to other people, so they are tied to Novell's Linux distribution. That would give Novell a significant advantage. It could also give Novell a monopoly in the area of Linux distributions

No it could not. You still don't realise that a lot of distro out there are not dependant on selling them. And you are not forced to use this distro, as long as the distro vendor does not have a "hardware monopoly".

In addition Linux can establish a "monopoly all by itself", by becoming so widespread that all competitors (Windows, FreeBSD, MacOS, etc...) die off. While no individual company would have a monopoly per se, Linux would be

No it would not, as anybody can still make their OS and interoperate with Linux.

Reply Score: 2

Deletomn Member since:
2005-07-06

Ookaze: No she can't, but you sure try a lot to spout nonsense.

And you sure try to spout insults and strawman arguments. Just because you don't agree with what I say doesn't make it "nonsense". Even if it was so, it would go without saying, because we'd all feel the need to say it everytime we comment on something.


Ookaze: Let's remember here that we're talking about, I quote you, a company that "sells" Linux.

I'm a bit busy right now to counter all your "nonsense" as you call it. But I will point out a few of things.


Ookaze: First nonsense : you have to now say they sell computers, but you just said the company sells Linux !!!!

You're making this too easy. You can sell both in the same package. In fact this is what Sony will probably be doing with Linux and the PS3. I doubt they'll just stuff Debian on it and call it a day.


Ookaze: They still won't have a monopoly on service. What you say is just pure nonsense. Lots of companies sell hardware and are the only ones able to offer service for their hardware. They still have no services monopoly.

That's because no hardware company has a monopoly on hardware. What you do is get the Linux distribution monopoly somehow first, then by extension you'll get the services monopoly, if you do it right. I'll elaborate a bit in the publications section of this post.


Ookaze: Distros vendors do not control publication, so they can not put magazines, or books out of business.

(For the sake of the argument, let's assume that RedHat and it's variants are the most popular Linux distribution by a wide margin.)

They can sure make a good go at it. Think about it... If RedHat chooses to sell publications based on their distribution, they will have a clear advantage over other companies that make Linux publications, simply because they will know about their own decisions regarding RedHat Linux before anyone else does. (As a side note they will also know MORE about RedHat Linux than anyone else does, since they made it. This is often used a reason for why you can make money without selling the software. But this argument cuts two ways.)

How is this an advantage? It's really quite simple. If they work it right, their division that handles publications could know months in advance, which would give them time to work out articles for their magazine(s) and book(s) and be published by the time the other companies know what the next version is.

The customers of these publications aren't going to just sit on their hands while the other companies catch up, many will be making purchases as soon as possible so that they can learn about what RedHat has choosen to include with their distribution and what adjustments they have made.

While the other companies would probably still exist, they would be at a clear and obvious disadvantage.


Ookaze: No it could not. You still don't realise that a lot of distro out there are not dependant on selling them. And you are not forced to use this distro, as long as the distro vendor does not have a "hardware monopoly".

You're stuffing words in my mouth. I'm a big believer in that you "don't need to sell the program." I'm a free software developer BTW who does not sell software. So yes, I know this stuff first hand. So you're singing to the choir. In fact, you should look at some of my other posts in which I have mentioned this.

This does not change the fact however that there are Linux distributions that do make money from selling software. Linspire comes to mind. I'm not as familiar with SUSE as I used to be, but unless I'm mistaken, they used to "make money" from selling that too.

And you don't realize that Microsoft doesn't have a hardware monopoly and yet for some reason they are an OS monopoly.

The fact is... If a particular distribution becomes a "standard" it will in turn essentially become a monopoly, particularly if it includes closed software which is essential to its operation. The reason being, people will write software, documentation, create hardware, and teach to that distribution. All others would essentially be "outcasts". While they would possibly enjoy some support it wouldn't be nearly as high. This is a problem even with free software that would be written to the distribution, because it takes time and effort to port programs.

We can see a similar situation with MacOS right now (though it is not a monopoly). MacOS can run many Linux and other UNIX programs no problem, but try running Mac programs on Linux. Also many people are willing to pay for MacOS. Now imagine if Apple was much bigger.

With my previous example... Drivers while not being an obvious "in your face" type thing like with MacOS's differences, is a critical part which many people would pay money for. In fact, some companies already make money selling drivers.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Fair's fair
by truckweb on Wed 29th Mar 2006 18:33 UTC in reply to "Fair's fair"
truckweb Member since:
2005-07-06

Marketshare is not everything. Look at Apple and OSX, with the included iLife bundle. And yet, nobody cry fool because Apple is doing this.

Microsoft should be able to add stuff in their OS. Media Player did not kill iTune or RealPlayer. And they are not giving free Anti-Virus in Vista. Lets not forget that AVG or Avast are there and free for home users.

So i'll say it too : Enough already.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Fair's fair
by Slapo on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Fair's fair"
Slapo Member since:
2005-07-06

there's a bit of a problem with Microsoft budling software to Windows: it's often too well integrated, so you can't really remove it (just not use it). Not that it would bug me much, but it does make some difference (again, not much, but it does).

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Fair's fair
by MikeGA on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Fair's fair"
MikeGA Member since:
2005-07-22

Yes, but the thing here is that iLife is not part of OS X. iLife is a collection of programs that Apple provides free with a new Mac, but with a new copy of OS X.

The iLife apps are just like any other programs and can be removed from the system very easily.

Trying to remove Media Player or Internet Explorer is nowhere near as simple.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Fair's fair
by paul.michael.bauer on Wed 29th Mar 2006 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fair's fair"
paul.michael.bauer Member since:
2005-07-06

Try removing iCal, Dashboard, Automator, etc..
Think of all the poor little calendering applications Apple put out of commission! Oh the humanity!

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Fair's fair
by MikeGA on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 00:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fair's fair"
MikeGA Member since:
2005-07-22

OK, iCal, I just need to delete the program and its support files. Done.

Dashboard, just don't run it, it only loads when you activate it, but I think your point is more valid here, seeing as technically it is part of the dock.

Automator, just remove the program as well.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Fair's fair
by DevL on Wed 29th Mar 2006 18:42 UTC in reply to "Fair's fair"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

Indeed. Microsoft has disqualified itself time and again and thus it's just proper that the EU gets tough on MS pro-actively.

Yes, everyone deserves a second chance. Microsoft, howver, is onto its 247th or so...

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Fair's fair
by donatj on Thu 30th Mar 2006 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Fair's fair"
donatj Member since:
2006-02-27

All microsoft ever did was include features, macos does the same thing, ie safari, ilife and they don't get anti-trusted

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Fair's fair
by donatj on Thu 30th Mar 2006 18:02 UTC in reply to "Fair's fair"
donatj Member since:
2006-02-27

When internet explorer was a decent browser, and hard as it is to believe there were a few years there between netscape 4.7 and firebird, the fact that I could browser my files and then from the same window pop open google was very handy. Konqueror does the same thing and no one sues gnome to make them take that out. That funtion is going to be sorely missed by at least me when IE7 finalizes

Edited 2006-03-30 18:02

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Fair's fair
by Arawn on Thu 30th Mar 2006 21:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fair's fair"
Arawn Member since:
2005-07-13

I agree with you, though I don't use that feature, because I only use IE... sorry, I mean Explorer ;) to browse files. I use Firefox for browsing sites.
But I do agree with you that it's a nice feature.

Reply Score: 1

Marius
by mariux on Wed 29th Mar 2006 18:24 UTC
mariux
Member since:
2005-11-13

I understand the reasons for this but where do you draw the line? Should microsoft not be allowed to improve their OS by adding new stuff for it at all until they have less than 50% marketshare?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Marius
by DKR on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:28 UTC in reply to "Marius"
DKR Member since:
2005-08-22

hould microsoft not be allowed to improve their OS by adding new stuff for it at all until they have less than 50% marketshare?

Not necessarily. Microsoft should be allowed to add new features to their operating system, but the way in which those features interoperate and communicate to similar technologies on non-Microsoft platforms must be smooth, open, and easy to acquire. A free market for competition.

Internet Explorer, Messenger, Windows Media Player, and other smaller technologies do not necessarily need to be included by default in Windows XP and future versions. That's the issue.

*Cough* OpenOffice and MS Office. *Cough*

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Marius
by sappyvcv on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Marius"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Not necessarily. Microsoft should be allowed to add new features to their operating system, but the way in which those features interoperate and communicate to similar technologies on non-Microsoft platforms must be smooth, open, and easy to acquire. A free market for competition.

Internet Explorer, Messenger, Windows Media Player, and other smaller technologies do not necessarily need to be included by default in Windows XP and future versions. That's the issue.


But why should they be forced to do these things by law? If they want to do something that some people consider a bad idea, but is legal, is it not their choice? If they do something to piss off consumers, it's their perogative, as long as it's legal.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Marius
by DKR on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Marius"
DKR Member since:
2005-08-22

There's limits to capitalism, my friend.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Marius
by sappyvcv on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Marius"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, and Microsoft has gone to court over them: The OEM deals.

You can't just arbitrarily decide when to limit what MS can and cannot do though, all under the guise of trying to control a monopoly.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Marius
by Domin on Thu 30th Mar 2006 09:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Marius"
Domin Member since:
2005-07-10

Especially in near-monopoly conditions.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Marius
by archiesteel on Wed 29th Mar 2006 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Marius"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

But why should they be forced to do these things by law? If they want to do something that some people consider a bad idea, but is legal, is it not their choice? If they do something to piss off consumers, it's their perogative, as long as it's legal.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? If laws are introduced to force MS to do something, and they don't comply, then they [i]are
doing something illegal.

The law is intended to curtail what the EU sees as a negative impact of MS on competition.

The fact that Windows should be interoperable with other systems or that they should not shut out competitors by bundling only their own applications doesn't really affect Windows users in any negative way. It's a bit surprising to see so many posters jump to Microsoft's defense...

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Marius
by sappyvcv on Thu 30th Mar 2006 04:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Marius"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Reading over my post, I made a typo or misplaced a word, but I'm not sure what. I can't remember my original meaning, so disregard what I said for now.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Marius
by BluenoseJake on Wed 29th Mar 2006 20:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Marius"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Office is not bundled with Windows, so it's a moot point, and MS has uncoupled IE from explorer in Vista, so seems to me they are doing just what you suggest, and even though windows messenger is bundled with XP, everybody uses MSN messenger, so that just leaves....a media player

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Marius
by dylansmrjones on Wed 29th Mar 2006 20:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Marius"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

IE is uncoupled? In what way? Has it become uninstallable without losing functionality in Windows?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Marius
by sappyvcv on Wed 29th Mar 2006 21:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Marius"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

You can no longer type a URL in explorer and have it load in that window. It would just launch a seperate window (IE) instead.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Marius
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 29th Mar 2006 21:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Marius"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You can no longer type a URL in explorer and have it load in that window. It would just launch a seperate window (IE) instead.

Oh? I just tested that here on my brand spanking new Windows laptop (Media Center Edition all patched up), and typing a url into a Explorer (file) window does not open a seperate IE window.

Or are you talking about Vista?

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Marius
by dylansmrjones on Wed 29th Mar 2006 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Marius"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

In Bluenose's post, it's related to Vista.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Marius
by sappyvcv on Thu 30th Mar 2006 06:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Marius"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Vista, sorry if I was unclear.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Marius
by dylansmrjones on Wed 29th Mar 2006 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Marius"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Okay.

Not much though, but probably a good start. But I can almost hear some persons complaining about the filebrowser not working as a webbrowser anymore, because this or that (open source) filebrowser can.

When that happens we have to mention why it is so.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Marius
by Domin on Thu 30th Mar 2006 09:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Marius"
Domin Member since:
2005-07-10

Are you able to free memory from Trident rendering engine related libraries in vista?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Marius
by BluenoseJake on Thu 30th Mar 2006 02:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Marius"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Yes, if I understand what the last few articles I read on it properly, IE 7 is a normal application, not integrated into explorer, which would allow it to be uninstalled.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Marius
by kaiwai on Thu 30th Mar 2006 02:24 UTC in reply to "Marius"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I understand the reasons for this but where do you draw the line? Should microsoft not be allowed to improve their OS by adding new stuff for it at all until they have less than 50% marketshare?

I agree - adding new applications isn't going to kill of competition, what did kill give Microsoft the edge was this - forbidding OEM vendors from replacing (still available, but put to the back in favour of something else) of Microsoft supplied software with something else.

Internet Explorer would be the prime example - although a good amount of the ground which Internet Explorer won was based off having a superior product, Microsoft did, however, forbid vendors from deleting Internet Explorer off the desktop in favour of replacing with something else, like Opera or Netscape/Mozilla.

This situation has since changed, however, the biggest threat to competition is the use of patents to stop interoperability by making it prohibitively expensive for others to create a solution which can communicate in a compatible manner.

If the EU and DOJ wish to come up with a solution; easy; all Microsoft patents are instantly disolved, and Microsoft provide FREE and UNHINDERED access to the specifications behind the technologies - to the level required as to allow someone to re-implement a 100% compatible version.

Reply Score: 1

not enough!
by Matzon on Wed 29th Mar 2006 18:29 UTC
Matzon
Member since:
2005-07-06

until one can install a competing OS alongside windows without loosing any discounts from microsoft, it isn't enough.

It sucks to be a monopoly, but it does have its fair bit of advantages - cash flow wise.

Reply Score: 5

RE: not enough!
by eMagius on Wed 29th Mar 2006 18:31 UTC in reply to "not enough!"
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

until one can install a competing OS alongside windows without loosing any discounts from microsoft, it isn't enough.

One has been able to do so for a long, long time. This is just the vindictive EU punishing Microsoft for creating a better user experience.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: not enough!
by chemical_scum on Wed 29th Mar 2006 18:38 UTC in reply to "RE: not enough!"
chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

One has been able to do so for a long, long time. This is just the vindictive EU punishing Microsoft for creating a better user experience.

Ho Ho Ho !!! Ha Ha Ha !!!

Thank you for raising the humour and satire content of OS News to a higher level.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: not enough!
by DevL on Wed 29th Mar 2006 18:44 UTC in reply to "RE: not enough!"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

"One has been able to do so for a long, long time. This is just the vindictive EU punishing Microsoft for creating a better user experience."

WRONG! OEMs cannot for example. Thanks for playing though.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: not enough!
by TaterSalad on Wed 29th Mar 2006 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: not enough!"
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

They can, they choose not to for cost reasons. If they did they won't get the discount from Microsoft. If other OS developers want to strike a better deal with the OEMs I'm sure those manufacturers will listen.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: not enough!
by dylansmrjones on Wed 29th Mar 2006 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: not enough!"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

That's exactly what the first poster wrote.

I quote:

"until one can install a competing OS alongside windows without loosing any discounts from microsoft, it isn't enough.

It sucks to be a monopoly, but it does have its fair bit of advantages - cash flow wise."


And you just confirmed that ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: not enough!
by Omega Penguin on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:15 UTC in reply to "RE: not enough!"
Omega Penguin Member since:
2006-02-12

Better user experience?Do you honestly believe that Windows is the best OS for every computer user?Yet almost all OEMs supply Windows and nothing else.The least the EU can do is get at least 1 OEM to offer systems that dual-boot Windows and another OS,like Linux or SkyOS.I'm not saying they should take things to the extreme,but computer users need a choice.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: not enough!
by johngalt on Thu 30th Mar 2006 02:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: not enough!"
johngalt Member since:
2006-03-30

Computer users need a choice? I have a choice. I use Linux on most of my machines. I don't want to pay for Windows when I will just erase it, so guess what I do? I will either build my own machine or buy one without an operating system on it. Then I will download my OS of choice and install it. If you don't want Windows, don't buy Dell/Gateway/HP desktops. Buy from a company that doesn't force you to use Windows. There are plenty of smaller companies that offer such products, so don't give me that "users need a choice" nonsense. They already have a choice.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: not enough!
by Omega Penguin on Wed 5th Apr 2006 11:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: not enough!"
Omega Penguin Member since:
2006-02-12

What most consumers will do is get a Dell,and get Windows preinstalled.Most people I know think that Linux is either just for servers,or they don't know about it at all.Linux needs to be supported by a major PC maker.

Reply Score: 1

RE: not enough!
by CPUGuy on Wed 29th Mar 2006 21:04 UTC in reply to "not enough!"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

Why exaclty is it wrong to give a bigger discount to someone who doesn't use competing technologies.

This is STANDARD in every line of business.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: not enough!
by galvanash on Wed 29th Mar 2006 21:44 UTC in reply to "RE: not enough!"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Why exaclty is it wrong to give a bigger discount to someone who doesn't use competing technologies.

This is STANDARD in every line of business.


Ignoring the moral arguments this may stir up, it is not legal for a company found to be a monopoly to do what you are describing, that is what is wrong with it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: not enough!
by dylansmrjones on Wed 29th Mar 2006 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE: not enough!"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

And quite often found discriminatory and illegal. At least in Denmark.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: not enough!
by ma_d on Wed 29th Mar 2006 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE: not enough!"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Because it's anti-competitive.

It's not "wrong", it leads to dire market circumstances. When a company takes over a market fully and keeps penetration from happening by being just good enough this stifles innovation in the area.
Essentially the market should just regulate itself. Consumers should be educated enough to discover companies which are staying afloat by being the only one and cease purchasing from them. But they don't. Sometimes they can't, but mostly they just don't care.

For example. Let's say you love some product from some brand. It's your favourite ever. Where is the last place you go to buy said product? Answer: Wal-mart. Reason: They tend to force producers into shipping at razor thin margins and even at a loss. You may actually be incurring a loss by buying the product there.
Few people know this. They just assume that you're supposed to buy things at the lowest possible price. Completely ignoring what producers are often forced to do (and often volunteer to do) to meet this challenge (make their stuff cheaper).


Anyway, the trouble with Microsoft doing this is they can say: "If you sell Mac's we want $400 for each copy of Windows. You make 95% of your business off of Windows machines. Would you prefer to not sell Mac's and we'll give it to you for $100?"

Of course, you can replace "Mac" with anything you like. It makes no difference, as long as it's small enough that Microsoft can make a big deal of their own margin.


Now, if Microsoft had 25% of the margin for computing it wouldn't be as big a deal, and would likely go totally unnoticed. Because those others would have distributors they could go pressure the same way. And then you'd see things like:
"Dell and Microsoft together!"
"HP pairs up with Novell!"
"Apple refuses partners, takes its ball and goes home!"

In the end the consumer would probably lose there too. But I do see quite a bit of that happening anyway. Go yell at the DOJ if you like.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: not enough!
by wing on Wed 29th Mar 2006 22:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: not enough!"
wing Member since:
2005-07-07

This view of the market is predicated on the idea that consumers should have an encyclopedic knowledge of commodities. Capitalism is based on the ignorance of what actually has to happen to make the spice flow, you can't just point to some abstract economic theory and say "aha, no its just the people who are wrong, not capitalism" when that isn't how it works out in practice.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: not enough!
by ma_d on Thu 30th Mar 2006 04:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: not enough!"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Um, my point was simply that ignorance + purely looking for the immediate (greedy) option is innefficient in the real world.

There's a reason people don't model modern economies straight off Wealth of Nations. It's my assertion that it could still work if people were educated beyond being cheap.

Capitalism is about people doing as they please, indivitually, for their own greatest good (and it's usually short term). So yes, if one fails, it's the people's fault; there's really no one else to blame (assuming there's been no outside influence causing said damage).

And actually, I'm not looking for an encyclopedic knowledge. I'd prefer they know more than that.

I've met a lot of people who research their major purchases in great detail. I can certainly understand buying toilet paper for small reasons, but when you're spending multiple percents of a years income I'd think some research is certainly in order.

What I explained was essentially why I believe straight capitalism is broken.

Reply Score: 1

What next?
by bakanekov3 on Wed 29th Mar 2006 18:54 UTC
bakanekov3
Member since:
2005-07-06

So now Microsoft isn't allowed to enhance it's operating system's security, what next? Maybe no one should be allowed to ship more than a basic kernel. One has to begin to wonder who's really pulling the strings of the EC.

There's a word that very clearly describes the current state of the European Commission: irrational

Reply Score: 2

Who is really pulling the strings?
by diegocg on Wed 29th Mar 2006 20:07 UTC in reply to "What next?"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

Could you read the post?


There're a lot of reasons why I think we can believe the EU comission is doing the RIGHT thing.

Take, for example, XAML. Are you aware that once Microsoft starts shipping Vista people will start creating web pages using XAML, creating a de-facto standard wich has not been certified by any standard comitee?

And what about Office's new DRM capabilities? The fact is that even if the XML format has been opened, the DRM layer closes it (DRM is just a crypto-powered closed format), allowing microsoft to keep the office monopoly . Office is 30% of their income and they're not going to be able to maintain all that income with so many people switching to openoffice unless they use something like...DRM.


I guess your take is to close your eyes like the USA government has been doing for years and pretend that this is not unfair competition? I'm shocked that there're SO MANY people asking the EU commission to stop. Either people haven't really looked at the problem or somebody is pulling the strings somewhere - but not the EC.

Reply Score: 5

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Since when is not using a certified standard in your software illegal?

Reply Score: 3

diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

Since when is not using a certified standard in your software illegal?

When you own the 95% of a market and using it will not be a "option" but a imposition to the other companies.

No matter how good or bad XAML is, people WILL JUST USE IT. That's the problem. I wish XAML would be just a offering which people will or will not use if they like/dislike it like it happens in any other market. This doesn't happens with Microsoft.


Capitalism is ABOUT competing. When there's no competition but monopolies trying to keep their monopolies the capitalism principles vanishes and you've something that remembers me of other systems where citiziens have not different offerings but the ones imposed by someone.


Hey, Microsoft says they love open source and standards now, why they didn't release a open source XAML implementation and documents a few closed protocols so that the EC will shut up their mouth? It doesn't means giving away all your income and killing your company - you can keep winning money by just doing great products.

Not suprisingly, Microsoft does anything but helping other players to compete freely. But hey, instead of asking Microsoft to behave and asking the EEUU government to do what the EC is doing people thinks it's "enough already". Poor microsoft, 11B$ of income and they ask them to help other companies to compete with them. And even forcing them they still try to workaround the EC request. Yeah, I've had "enough already", but not of the EC.

Edited 2006-03-29 20:42

Reply Score: 4

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

When you own the 95% of a market and using it will not be a "option" but a imposition to the other companies.

Using it is and option, and you're delusional if you think otherwise.

Reply Score: 1

diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

Using it is and option, and you're delusional if you think otherwise

I'll remember you when people starts creating XAML documents and people start saying "uh, but this linux thing can't see some web page" (the ones with XAML)

I'll remember you that when office DRM becomes widespread and your company/college/university has no option but buy a office license because, uh, DRM uses cryptography to avoid people from reverse-engineering it (you know, reverse engineering in EU is allowed for interoperatibility purposes, Microsoft just find a way to avoid that: using cryptography to avoid that, also called 'DRM')


And of course people is buying Windows servers because "they've the option". The fact that several win client<->win server protocols are closed - and you know, 95% of the desktops (clients) are usually windows - doesn't matters at all, nope, windows server is not growing because of using that to avoid competitors in the server space. I guess the EC should stop asking Microsoft to document those printing protocols which could allow Linux or any other non-Microsoft server operative system work well with windows clients.

Edited 2006-03-29 21:16

Reply Score: 5

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Using it is and option, and you're delusional if you think otherwise.

Within a monopoly using it is an awful lot less of an option than using another alternative, and you've left your marbles in a far off land called Redmond if you can't see that.

Reply Score: 2

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

It's still an option.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What next?
by Anton_Andreev on Thu 30th Mar 2006 08:45 UTC in reply to "What next?"
Anton_Andreev Member since:
2006-03-14

Indeed it sounds pretty right! An OS means the basic software that controls your computer. It does not mean it should include mail, video, messaging ...

There should be a Windows version with and without these programs. If I prefer other programs or there are free ones why I should pay Microsoft? Why cant't buy most laptops without Windows preinstalled?

Reply Score: 1

Milo_Hoffman
Member since:
2005-07-06

Its obvious that if this is actually a real problem then the company needs to be broken up into seperate peices so there is no crossbreeding between applications and OS etc.

When your a monopoly this is a valid anti-trust concern. Its the price of extra regulation you pay for holding a monopoly position in a market.

Reply Score: 4

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

The EU can't break MS up, it's an American company

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, Microsoft Danmark isn't an american company ;)

Reply Score: 1

microsoft
by MaBu on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:13 UTC
MaBu
Member since:
2006-01-04

SO why I can't unistall WMP or IE or Messenger whitout some special programs?

Reply Score: 5

RE: microsoft
by altair on Wed 29th Mar 2006 23:46 UTC in reply to "microsoft"
altair Member since:
2005-07-06

You can uninstall Windows Messenger. I know because my work computer did not have it installed and so I had to go through the system components install menu (don't remember where it is) and install it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: microsoft
by Arawn on Thu 30th Mar 2006 15:40 UTC in reply to "microsoft"
Arawn Member since:
2005-07-13

There lies the main problem.

Personally, I don't care if Microsoft bundles all the software they wish with Windows, as long I'm given the option to install it or not!

That has been the main problem all this time. Microsoft insisted that IE wasn't separable from the OS, and we all got to know it was a lie, and a deliberate one at that.

So, it's simple. Give us the choice to install or not.

Now, some companies can argue that their products won't be bundled with MS Windows because of MS contractual tatics. I think that's a completely different problem. And it might have a different solution.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: microsoft
by klynch on Thu 30th Mar 2006 16:40 UTC in reply to "RE: microsoft"
klynch Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, I agree. They should have some sort of package installation system like Linux distributions do.

Reply Score: 2

Having fun
by ormandj on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:15 UTC
ormandj
Member since:
2005-10-09

I'm actually quite the supporter of Europe a lot of the time (I've lived there..) but lately, the EU has been really pissing me off. I'm no fan of MS (and likely never will be), and I'm certainly not a fan of monopolies (they harm the consumer... ME.)

That being said, this is a bit much. If MS wants to bundle everything on earth into it's product and sell it, more power to it. If people are willing to pay for it, they should be able to. I have a problem when MS does something completely unethical (such as giving huge discounts to people who bundle, or withdrawing their product completely from OEMs who don't include windows on every machine.. etc.) You know, illegal things.

Why on earth is it "ok" to punish a company for doing something everybody always cries for anyways. Everybody just wants one big integrated chunk of software that does everything. Hell, most companies would pay through the nose to get it. As long as the software provider who makes that chunk of software does so LEGALLY, what on earth gives the EU the right to tell them what they can and can't include in their OS? It's one thing to prevent price fixing, under the table deals, etc. Those are all illegal things, and are BAD for consumers. The government is in place to help the *people*. It's another thing entirely to start telling companies what they can and can't do with their product. If I want to try and sell dog-poo flavored toothpaste with a special toothbrush that has a 10,000hp engine attached and comes bundled with a cow, the government has no right to stop me from doing so. If people pay for it, that's it. Obviously I filled a niche. If everybody on earth starts using my package of goodies, and I decide I want to add in a razor that purposefully causes nicks on your face, that's again MY choice. Nobody should be able to stop me from doing so.

If all toothpaste makers on earth go out of business because my toothbrush is soooo desired, then that's their fault for not fixing their business model to cope. Now, the instant I start doing deals with various dentists making sure they have no CHOICE but to offer only MY solution, THEN there is a problem. Government should step in and say "hey, that's abusing your monopoly powers." Etc, you all are bright enough to figure out what true abuse of monopoly powers is. It certainly isn't making a do-all-system.

Same goes for MS. There are plenty of choices. Any place can use anything, really. Ok, so you've got thousands of docs in Word format. Ok, let's just say OpenOffice can't open some of them properly. Who is FORCING you to upgrade to Vista? Nobody. Support for XP will be around for a long time. More than enough time for you to figure out some solution to migrate your data. If you don't like MS's system, don't pay for it. This isn't the realm of government hand slapping though!

I don't know why the vindictive stance right now by the EU. China is doing it too now, "give us your code". Hey, if I spent 20 years working on something that is my livelyhood, I wouldn't very well want to give it away either. Would you?

You can argue all you want about MS's past, and I'd agree with you, they've been really nasty. That is no reason to infringe on their rights as a company though. Punish them for what they do that is illegal, and be proactive about it. That's fine. Don't start slapping them around like a cheap prostitute simply because you are *the government* and you can. Eu is the one abusing the monopoly in this case, they have monopoly control of Europe. If MS wants to do business in Europe (and trust me, they do..) then they have to bend over and take it up the butt with whatever the EU says. Same goes for China.

Look at Google. You can argue how "good" they are, and how they did what they did in China out of "goodness" or whatever, but it's the same deal. Google is a company, they need/want China, they bent over and took it up the butt. Hello censorship! MS will be forced to do the same. This just plain sucks.

Summary: Punish those who break the law, being proactive is GREAT. Don't slap people around just because you are in a position to do so. Don't punish business for having something everybody wants/doing what everyone wants. Don't even punish them for "winning" against the competition. Just make sure the rules are fair. The consumer's money will determine who wins in the end. Let them decide what companies succeed and fail.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Having fun
by DKR on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:35 UTC in reply to "Having fun"
DKR Member since:
2005-08-22

If all toothpaste makers on earth go out of business because my toothbrush is soooo desired, then that's their fault for not fixing their business model to cope.

1.) Toothpaste vendors do not fight against toothbrush vendors. In fact, most toothpaste vendors are toothbrush vendors, as well. There is no competition in products that are supposed to work like that. Or at least, there shouldn't be. It's like saying nobody will buy my keyholes because someobdy's keys are so desired. Doesn't work.

2.) The problem is not that other business models could not cope with Microsoft: Microsoft woulnd't allow them to cope. They have no recourse against MS.

3.) When you said:

Don't punish business for having something everybody wants/doing what everyone wants. Don't even punish them for "winning" against the competition. Just make sure the rules are fair.

You contradicted yourself. Most Windows users I am acquainted with wish they could uninstall Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player. However, they cannot. The rules are not fair. That's where you're wrong.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Having fun
by ormandj on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Having fun"
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

"1.) Toothpaste vendors do not fight against toothbrush vendors. In fact, most toothpaste vendors are toothbrush vendors, as well. There is no competition in products that are supposed to work like that. Or at least, there shouldn't be. It's like saying nobody will buy my keyholes because someobdy's keys are so desired. Doesn't work. "

Uh, not sure why this goes against what I said.

"2.) The problem is not that other business models could not cope with Microsoft: Microsoft woulnd't allow them to cope. They have no recourse against MS. "

You're correct, hence my "MS has been nasty" comment. Half of my post was dedicated to outlining what is illegal should be punished. MS's anti-competative practices with OEMs and so forth was illegal. They should have had the crap kicked out of them for it.

"3.) When you said:

Don't punish business for having something everybody wants/doing what everyone wants. Don't even punish them for "winning" against the competition. Just make sure the rules are fair.
You contradicted yourself. Most Windows users I am acquainted with wish they could uninstall Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player. However, they cannot. The rules are not fair. That's where you're wrong."

Uh, no I didn't? Maybe most users you know want to uninstall all of it, but that's not indicative of the general user. Maybe you don't know your grandma? Do you think she really cares if she's using IE or WMP or whatever? She just wants to be able to surf the net with no issues, and play any video/audio/whatever file with no issues. General users don't care what they are using as long as it all works. If it's an all-in-one solution and they don't have to mess with it, they are HAPPY. Same with businesses. Simplification is GOOD. I'm not contradicting myself at all by saying such. It sounds like you're equating "most windows users" with "my techie friends." Don't make that mistake. OSNews users, techie friends, etc are NOT the general population of consumers, nor the general population of business folk. The general population of both would die for a single product which did everything well. Pay for it too.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Having fun
by DKR on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Having fun"
DKR Member since:
2005-08-22

Well, let's outline what I mean to say:

* Your comment made a good point.
* There were a couple things I did not find clear enough.

By the way, my grandmother uses Linux. Got an Ubuntu Breezy box. Loves Firefox.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Having fun
by ormandj on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Having fun"
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

Right on. ;) Well, then I hope by your comment, and my followup, it's clear now!

Awesome grandmother. I wish mine would, I get tired of flying to the mainland USA to clear out all the spyware/adware her computer has obtained from the 483084 emails she gets forwarded a day. Trust me when I say, I hate MS. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Having fun
by DKR on Wed 29th Mar 2006 20:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Having fun"
DKR Member since:
2005-08-22

Right on. ;) Well, then I hope by your comment, and my followup, it's clear now!

Oh, totally dude. Everything's clear as crystal now.

And trust me when I say Microsoft has two decisions:

1.) Pull out of Europe.
2.) Open up their formats and have free of price and free as in speech alternatives such as OpenOffice and Firefox and Samba, ultimately Linux dominate.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Having fun
by sappyvcv on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Having fun"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

You contradicted yourself. Most Windows users I am acquainted with wish they could uninstall Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player. However, they cannot. The rules are not fair. That's where you're wrong.

Why?

You don't have to use them unless a product integrates them. But you can use the right products to not need them at all. But why does it matter if they're fully REMOVED from the system? What benefit do you gain? A few megabytes on the hard disk and nothing else? WHOOPTY DOO!

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Having fun
by DKR on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Having fun"
DKR Member since:
2005-08-22

No. Every damn time you open up Explorer to grab that Word file you saved in My Documents, you're essentially opening up part of IE. Vice versa.

Removing them would make the system fundamentally more secure.

* Cough * Windows Update requires IE or compatible. * Cough *

Man, I seem to be coughing a lot today. Dust in the air.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Having fun
by sappyvcv on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Having fun"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

How would removing them make the system more secure? You don't have to use explorer either. You can use an alternate shell and file manager.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Having fun
by DKR on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Having fun"
DKR Member since:
2005-08-22

You don't have to use explorer either. You can use an alternate shell and file manager.

Yes, but there is no guaranteed functionality with the kernel, because that's closed, too ;) You will eventually run into some interoperability issues.

I understand your point, though.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Having fun
by sappyvcv on Wed 29th Mar 2006 20:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Having fun"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

You may be right, but then that's a usability issue, not a legality issue.

Though I'm still not quite sure what problems you'd run into...

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Having fun
by DKR on Wed 29th Mar 2006 20:05 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Having fun"
DKR Member since:
2005-08-22

You may be right, but then that's a usability issue, not a legality issue.

The legality of those file managers is questionable. Microsoft has pulled a Steve Ballmer Burial Procedure(TM) on many similar technologies.

Though I'm still not quite sure what problems you'd run into...

Although the issues are few and far between, they are mainly issues dealing with WMP and IE integrated into the recent XP explorer shell bar thingy on the left that allows you to have WMP integrated into explorer. It's nasty.

Edit: Sometimes, the alternatives file managers crash because ntoskrnl.dll calls for that program to come up.

Edited 2006-03-29 20:08

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Having fun
by sappyvcv on Wed 29th Mar 2006 20:07 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Having fun"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

The legality of those file managers is questionable. Microsoft has pulled a Steve Ballmer Burial Procedure(TM) on many similar technologies.

You'll have to be more specific on what is questionable.

Although the issues are few and far between, they are mainly issues dealing with WMP and IE integrated into the recent XP explorer shell bar thingy on the left that allows you to have WMP integrated into explorer. It's nasty.

Ok.. then where are the interoperability issues if you use a different shell? Alternate shells can integrated IE and/or WMP if they want to as well.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Having fun
by ma_d on Wed 29th Mar 2006 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Having fun"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Name one. I've tried two, and both were using Explorer for the window manager.
Or by shell do you mean the CP/M prompt?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Having fun
by sappyvcv on Wed 29th Mar 2006 20:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Having fun"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

By shell I mean shell, not window manager. Explorer is NOT the window manager, windows handles that at a lower level.

I'm not sure what CP/M prompt is though...

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Having fun
by ma_d on Wed 29th Mar 2006 21:41 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Having fun"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

DOS ~= CP/M. CP/M was a system that predated DOS by a bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M#MS-DOS_takes_over

Shell is commonly used to refer to a work environment in general, and to a programming environment so I didn't know to which you referred.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_%28computing%29

When explorer crashes, all my windows dissappear until it restarts. So I don't know where the window manager is at, but my attempts to replace it with something good were a total failure.

I suppose I could have tried Stardock or Windowblinds, but I don't use Windows enough for $20 right now.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Having fun
by ma_d on Wed 29th Mar 2006 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Having fun"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Well, actually, a lot of SP2's new interfacing is just pages in Trident.

But yes, fully removing Trident would cripple Windows and it would be silly to ask for it. If you don't like it so much, don't use Windows.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Having fun
by dylansmrjones on Wed 29th Mar 2006 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Having fun"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I wonder what size IE has today everything counted in.

Back in the Windows98 days, you gained 75 MByte from uninstalling Internet Explorer. And loosed some desktop functionality which wasn't critical. Most of this was regained when reinstalling IE without the close integration (but then you also lost gained disk space).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Having fun
by porcel on Wed 29th Mar 2006 23:40 UTC in reply to "Having fun"
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

There is no way to get widespread distribution of alternative operating systems such as Linux from HP or Dell.

All you get is a few models that nobody wants and that are more expensive than the windows-subsidized ones, which often end up having better hardware at a lower price.

So get this: The average consumer does not consciously choose windows. He wants to use whatever everyone else uses to "stay compatible" which is nothing more than euphemism for "I can't read my files properly" because proprietary developer has locked me in.

And the reason why the EU needs is doing a fantastic job is that if Microsoft is allowed to bundled more and more apps, they will push out more and more app developers who cannot and will never have the access to users PCs. Get it?

By the way, getting a monopoly because you are good at something isn't illegal. Using that monopoly to encroach on other markets and kill your competitors is.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Having fun
by eMagius on Thu 30th Mar 2006 00:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Having fun"
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

So get this: The average consumer does not consciously choose windows. He wants to use whatever everyone else uses to "stay compatible" which is nothing more than euphemism for "I can't read my files properly" because proprietary developer has locked me in.

Office's XML format is open. Earlier versions have been reversed engineered and Microsoft's not tried to shut anyone down over it.

If consumers were really satisfied with slow, buggy and crash-prone software like OpenOffice and its kin, they'd choose it. If Dell and HP could support X distro of Linux at a fair cost, they would -- but no, if Dell supports Red Hat, all the Suse, Mandriva, Ubuntu lovers whine and complain, and the Red Hat fans are pissed that Dell is shipping version Y - 0.000001. Any non-geek who's fooled into buying the system is outraged that he's using what appears to be some cheap knock-off of Windows and the apps he's familiar with. No one wins.

If you're so confident that your product is ace, let the market decide.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Having fun
by PlatformAgnostic on Thu 30th Mar 2006 02:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Having fun"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

There's an easy to see reason for this. Dell/HP/et al. provide support for purchasers of their computers. It helps them to have a generally known and easy to use OS as their default config so that they can handle support calls reasonably well (not that they do, anyway, but they'd have absolutely NO chance if they bundled a bunch of linux distros).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Having fun
by burtis on Thu 30th Mar 2006 03:28 UTC in reply to "Having fun"
burtis Member since:
2005-11-15

Rant rant rant.

Reply Score: 1

Same old scheme
by Bonus on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:40 UTC
Bonus
Member since:
2005-12-23

Make it seem like you care by playing courtroom games with MS meanwhile MS remains a monopoly. Yawn.

This is the same 'preemptive' mentality the government uses today that makes it seem like they are doing something.

Remember those court appearances by MS in the late 90s. What a joke that was.

Edited 2006-03-29 19:41

Reply Score: 1

Oh...
by dylansmrjones on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:42 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

Again?

No doubt MS is abusing it's monopoly, but puhlease... I'm getting tired of this.

Just tell Microsoft to make IE, WMP and whatnot uninstallable, and let that be it.

If users are sick and tired of Windows then f--king switch.

The alternatives are strong enough to compete. Let the market powers take care of this, FFS!

Reply Score: 3

RE: Oh...
by Domin on Thu 30th Mar 2006 12:17 UTC in reply to "Oh..."
Domin Member since:
2005-07-10

It's not about having something unistallable (though I'm pissed of that IE occupies great chunk of my dated laptop's memory, it doesn't preclude me from using FF), but about having something enabled by default and appearing being integrated part of the OS.

The army of sixpacks will instantly associate given functionality with only single MS product, killing the competition and enforcing proprietary communication standards which put the competition further by the wall .
This way MS has headstart in any product category it imagines. They doesn't have to act rapidly.
They observe market, select some promising new solutions, develop their own and then bundle it eating the innovator's luch just before it becomes mainstream (As the "mainstream" comprises mainly of sixpacks).
Just following Balmer's words, they did it in the past and they are going to do this again.

One example:
Real might have had crap products, but Media Player wasn't really that much better at that time. Real had geat chunk of the market, suddenly came MS and brought "better experience" which can generally be summed as "oh, you say I don't have to install additional sw to see video on Internet?"?
As more sixpacks jumped in the question really turned to be "Say what, you say I have to install something to see video? Ridiculous, why whould I do that?"
Their advantage comes not from the product value (they have to present somethnig not distinctly inferior) but the mere position of an OS packager and is glaringly unfair. The second thing is that MS can do is verify and test integration of their sw with every release of Windows and SP code much better that 3rd parties and before them.
Now the situation is as follows, people grown to expect web media just work in bare OS and Real lost most of its markes share.
Many streamers would dream of using cheap and unencumbered formats such as Xiph but loosing army of sixpacks because "the site doesn't work on my computer" is not an option. So they cry, pay and push the addional costs up to their customers.

Generally they charge extra as long as the product is profitable for them. If it's not, they just exchange monetary value into control and increase appeal of windows cutting competitors wings in the same time.

That wouldn't be so hurting if you could screw Windows altogether, the problem is that with every new bundle it's harder and harder.

Remember nobody forbids MS developing it's own anti spyware solution and offering it for download, even as 500x500 banner of front page of all of it's portals.
The only worries are about it becoming part of vital infrastucture. (compare it to situation where single company owns most of highways and roads in your coutry and by entering the higway you're forced to buy 10 litres of gas from the company's owned station)

As for EU commission, I think they realised that the fiasco with XP-N was among others because the measures came too late. So now they just act proactively.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Oh...
by Wintermute on Thu 30th Mar 2006 19:38 UTC in reply to "Oh..."
Wintermute Member since:
2005-07-30

The alternatives are strong enough to compete.

I am sorry but you are very wrong in your statement. The alternatives don't even come close. As much as I value the Linux world, it is simply not ready for the mainstream world. As geeks we like to celebrate all the cool UI and usability developments in the *nix world, but they don't really reach your average computer users. For instance, I have friends who are capable of installing NVIDIA drivers on windows; they won't be able to the same thing on Linux, that's just one example, the list is endless.

P.S. There is no need lecture me on why NVIDIA drivers canít come in an easy all in one GUI package similar to the windows .exe. I am just telling you how my class mates would react to using linux. And btw, Mac OS isnít really a viable alternative, not everyone likes to pay extra money for some bullshit marketing and no real advantages (at least in terms of hardware, forget software).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Oh...
by dylansmrjones on Thu 30th Mar 2006 23:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Oh..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Huh?

The proprietary can come in even easier than as an equivalent of an .exe and is also installable as an installer (selfextracting archive with installation script, running a installation wizard).

Everybody can install nvidia-drivers. Just download, and run it, and there you are.

Depending on your distribution it might even be easier than that. Unless you consider it difficult to choose the drivers from a list and click "Install".

So basically you're spreading FUD.

Reply Score: 1

Good ol' bureaucracy
by ronaldst on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:44 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

At work. Gotta be proud of the old continent.

Reply Score: 2

Microsoft is breaking the law
by Moulinneuf on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:44 UTC
Moulinneuf
Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft was/is breaking the law , they have been charged and found guilty , instead of complying with the law , they are doing everything in there powers to avoid to comply with the rulings , they have been given a year to comply.

My advice to the European Commission is to add Jail time for all upper management and ask for extradition for mocking the court of law repetively.

Bring in for questionning and detention the journalist who think that its funny to break the law ( http://www.osnews.com/editor.php?editors_id=11 ) and not comply with a punishment by saying "My take: Enough already. Seriously.". Explain to him clearly and in details that law are there for everyone to follow , if you dont , you have to face the consequence be it individuals or corporations.

If an individual break the law , he get trown in jail and if he dont comply with paying the fines and respecting the court rulings he get trown in jail some more. The EU need to show that its not a crooked governement and that those convicted criminal cant decide on what there sentence is going to be and comply with it when they feel like it.

Enough with protecting the crooks , criminals and thiefs with money they acquired by illegal means. Respect and follow the law of the country your doing business in or dont do business there.

Reply Score: 4

What is everybody talking about?
by Arno on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:47 UTC
Arno
Member since:
2006-01-10

Did anyone actualy read this? The main compaint isn't the software bundeled with Windows but the interoperability with other programs/services.
I think this is a good thing. Why shouldn't other devices, operatingsystems and etc. be able to communicate with the most spread OS? This is just fair, they don't keep themself to standards, they must inform others about their way of communicating.

Edited 2006-03-29 19:47

Reply Score: 5

RE: What is everybody talking about?
by DKR on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:51 UTC in reply to "What is everybody talking about?"
DKR Member since:
2005-08-22

Why shouldn't other devices, operatingsystems and etc. be able to communicate with the most spread OS? This is just fair, they don't keep themself to standards, they must inform others about their way of communicating.

--Microsoft Customers, circa 1776.

Reply Score: 2

cg0def Member since:
2006-02-12

I agree with you. MS has been trying to bend standarts all the time and they even create their own. Well any way you look at it it's just plain unfair competition and using the fact that MS products are so wide spread. Changing the .doc format every couple of years because is supposedly workd better now is really bad for competition too and their compleate reluctance to use open formats and open standards for communication and data storage really tickes me off. So in this particluar case I think the EU is doing something good. Only I'm not sure that the EU layers are not going a little bit too far. You do have to draw the line somewhere and there needs to be some way to profit from your own ideas.

Reply Score: 1

keep it up
by GreatBunzinni on Wed 29th Mar 2006 19:47 UTC
GreatBunzinni
Member since:
2005-10-31

I wish that the EU keeps up with the pressure. This is the first time that some authority tries to force Microsoft to play by the rules. Microsoft tries to lock in the users and the vendors and EU isn't playing along, which is what is expected from a (supra?)national power. Why isn't the US defending the consumer's rights and the OEM's interests by imposing the same demands as the EU?

And by the way, the EU isn't stopping Microsoft from offering a better user experience. The EU is only stopping Microsoft from tying up and locking down the entire OS and therefore holding down software makers, OEMs and consumers. It's about free choice and not the choice that MS does for it's consumers.

Reply Score: 5

...
by suryad on Wed 29th Mar 2006 20:04 UTC
suryad
Member since:
2005-07-09

I am not very knowledgeable on this topic but hasnt the EU forced MS to release a Starter version of XP called XP N or something like that? And the fact of the matter is that there were absolutely no people interested that would make it worth MS's time to make a version of XP that had every bit of functionality except the evil Windows Media Player bundled in it. So that was a failed attempt and I am sure you would all agree...so why is the EU doing this again?

This is beyond monopolistic practices. They are going against human nature which is that if you dont need something no one is going to use it. What I am trying to say is the average Joe Schmoe does not know or need to know there are alternatives out there because they could care less. All they want is for things to work in a way that makes sense and is very trouble free. forget security and all that DRM stuff and licensing etc etc who cares? That is why MS is so popular because it is so easy to use and people forgive the fact that they have spyware and so on as a huge problem to deal with.

I think the EU is just being greedy. Whether MS bundles these softwares or not is a moot point because if it isnt bundled in Vista for example, 2 things would happen, people would try to download open source and free variants of the apps they are missing or two, people would go without using it. Only power users and people who are above the average curve in computing care about what softwares they use and so on. that is just my take on it. The EU is giving itself a bad name and is fighting a losing battle.

Reply Score: 2

including software
by bbjimmy on Wed 29th Mar 2006 20:07 UTC
bbjimmy
Member since:
2006-03-25

It is not the removal issue, it is the fact that including the software in an OS that holds a monopoly position is an aggressive pricing policy. It extends and intrenches that monopoly. It thwarts competing software and prevents the competing vendors from a return on their investment. They can only price software this low ... free ... because it is bunbdled with the OS that is a money maker.

By the way, the OS is not Microsoft's Cash Cow. That is Microsoft Office, The OS is there only to keep the Office Monopoly strong.

Reply Score: 1

Not Your Business
by ma_d on Wed 29th Mar 2006 20:28 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

Courts are impartial, unpolitical, and not Democratic. They're that way for a good reason: The opinions of the masses are neither swift, nor are they often based on facts. It also serves as a solid check against several other forms of democracy in most Governments.

Microsoft, and Microsoft detractors, have chosen to make this trial highly political and get everyone up in a storm about it. It does no good either way. So frankly, have your opinion, but do remember: There's not a thing you can do, and it's that way for a reason.

Trials take a long time. This one isn't to "a long time" yet. Get used to the fact that this is probably going to take at least another year! This isn't punishment for Microsoft, this is an attempt to let Microsoft prove itself a judicious company. The court thinks it's failed, and so does the "expert" picked from Microsofts list. And they're giving it more chances to cooperate.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not Your Business
by Night on Wed 29th Mar 2006 22:10 UTC in reply to "Not Your Business"
Night Member since:
2005-07-07

The EC is not a court, and this is not a trial. The EC is not entitled to be judge, jury, and executioner.

When the EC axe comes down on Microsoft, they will appeal to the ICJ and CFI, and the real trial will start. I've read a lot about the case and documentation, and feel that the EC is on a witch hunt. (Look at the result of mandated XP N)

We'll know for sure when a true court issues a ruling on this case. As you say, this has not been 'a long time' yet. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not Your Business
by ma_d on Thu 30th Mar 2006 04:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Not Your Business"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

It functions like a court. The members aren't for life, but they do not represent a section or country but the EU as a whole (much like a judge is to represent the law). And they're their to enforce laws.
They're another form of court. Once again, the opinion of the masses is not their concern.

Reply Score: 1

Article didnt load...
by the__dude on Wed 29th Mar 2006 21:37 UTC
the__dude
Member since:
2006-02-27

The article didnt load. Is the EU just jealous or something that an American company has the dominant desktop OS? They seem so concerned about making MS strip features away from their OS, why dont they do the same for Apple or any other OS distributor?

Reply Score: 1

Antitrust and what it means
by Splinter on Wed 29th Mar 2006 21:51 UTC
Splinter
Member since:
2005-07-13

The antitrust laws in the US and the EU are all about preventing a company that has a monopoly in one area, using that to gain market share or market control in an other area.

Microsoft has been found guilty of that in both continents. The US ruled they used there desktop install base to remove control the Internet Browser market. The did this by bundling for free a product that used to be paid for by the OEM or consumer from another company. They then wrote financial contracts with OEM companies to encourage them not to included the competitors products.

In the EU they were accused of reducing or attempting to reduce the market share of other media players and providers by the way they enhanced the media player to be a complete entertainment program like 3rd party applications that were previously purchased seperatly.

Now they plan to do the same to the Virus and firewall market.

These laws exist for two reasons:
1. To ensure competition can exist and provide better products to the consumer (note afte MS controlled the browser no significant advances were made for over 5 years)
2. To ensure smaller companies can remian viable against fair competition (Netscape, Real Networks, Zone Labs, Mcafee AV)

Reply Score: 5

RE: Antitrust and what it means
by sappyvcv on Thu 30th Mar 2006 06:24 UTC in reply to "Antitrust and what it means"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

The US ruled they used there desktop install base to remove control the Internet Browser market.

I'm getting tired of having to repeat this, but...
That was ruled void by a later court. The ruling giving by the judge is actually a very very good read. I'll try to find it again if you'd like.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The link for the second ruling is? ;)

Reply Score: 1

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Finding the actual ruling and text is a PITA, but I am still looking. It took me FOREVER to find it last time.

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-269179.html

Look there though. Look under "The decisions: A breakdown":

"Issue : Microsoft attempted to extend that monopoly into the browser market.
Ruling: The court disagreed, reversing the previous ruling on attempted monopolization."

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Oh well, this is good enough. At least it gives me clues enough to do the search myself.

Reply Score: 1

v Europe and why they are rednecks
by proforma on Wed 29th Mar 2006 23:17 UTC
lookus Member since:
2006-03-29

Are you serious???

You don't know anything about Europe, do you? Stick to the topic.. and get the facts about Europe..

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Huh?
What are you smoking, dude?

Reply Score: 1

ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

@proforma

They can't stand American businesses that are successful.

It's the jealousy. Europe is pretty messed up.

Reply Score: 0

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Aha...

Reply Score: 1

Haven't complied with first ruling yet
by burtis on Thu 30th Mar 2006 03:26 UTC
burtis
Member since:
2005-11-15

Microsoft hasn't complied with the first ruling concerning XP. Why shouldn't the EU be proactive?

Reply Score: 1

Non-story
by AdamW on Thu 30th Mar 2006 05:02 UTC
AdamW
Member since:
2005-07-06

"The Wall Street Journal interviewed Neelie Kroes who said the ÄU must design Vista so it doesn't breach antitrust rules. Or else."

In other words:

EU: Microsoft, your product must not break the law or we won't let you sell it.

WOW! Big story!

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Marius
by archiesteel on Thu 30th Mar 2006 05:55 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

That's okay, I apparently forgot to close an italics tag... ;)

Reply Score: 1

I support the EU in its policy...
by aGNUstic on Thu 30th Mar 2006 13:43 UTC
aGNUstic
Member since:
2005-07-28

XP-N was for all intends was just taking the proverbial bell off of the bicycle.

Using MS is not a user enhancing experience nor is it a stable product. If it was there would not be so many d*#@%$! third-party add-ons to protect data, fight viruses, enhance security, etc.

How many flavors of the multi-colored lolipop must you lick before you figure out its the same thing as all the previous candies.

I support the EU in its policy to allow for competition.

Reply Score: 2

and Linux?
by chrishaney on Thu 30th Mar 2006 14:47 UTC
chrishaney
Member since:
2005-11-15

Your favorite distro should ONLY include base KDE or GNOME too!

Reply Score: 1

RE: and Linux?
by archiesteel on Thu 30th Mar 2006 17:28 UTC in reply to "and Linux?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Your favorite distro should ONLY include base KDE or GNOME too!

Uh, no, because the bundled software in a distro does not all belong to a single company.

Reply Score: 1