Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Sep 2006 21:38 UTC
Microsoft Two US software firms are asking the European Commission to take action against Microsoft's new Vista operating system, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday. Adobe Systems has told EU regulators that Microsoft should be banned from incorporating free competing software for reading and creating electronic documents with Vista, the paper said, quoting people familiar with the situation. Anti-virus software maker Symantec will send officials to Brussels next week to brief journalists about features of Vista that it has told EU regulators will undercut rival makers of computer security software, the paper said.
Order by: Score:
Guaranteed market control?
by jjmckay on Thu 21st Sep 2006 21:58 UTC
jjmckay
Member since:
2005-11-11

Okay from a consumer's perspective it's nice to have another choice besides Adobe and Symantec. I personally want MS to include these features in the OS. Not saying I'll use them but I'd like to have that option.

The computer operating system over the years has grown from a basic program launcher and file manager to much more. I want to see that evolution continue. I could go on for a long time about features and programs that MS, Linux, Apple and others have included in the OS that were not included in years past. These very features are ones that third parties sold for a fee.

Why can't Adobe, Symantec and others just evolve their own products to be BETTER than MS's products like they've always done anyway? Or they can develop new products. A document reader like Acrobat will not have an indefinite life span. All things come to an end so I say to those companies - deal with it - accept it - move on.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Guaranteed market control?
by Sphinx on Thu 21st Sep 2006 23:06 UTC in reply to "Guaranteed market control?"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Problem is it won't be an option.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Guaranteed market control?
by Tyr. on Thu 21st Sep 2006 23:35 UTC in reply to "Guaranteed market control?"
Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

Why can't Adobe, Symantec and others just evolve their own products to be BETTER than MS's products like they've always done anyway? Or they can develop new products. A document reader like Acrobat will not have an indefinite life span. All things come to an end so I say to those companies - deal with it - accept it - move on.

Because even if they made really great products MS would have a de facto 100% market coverage before they even got in the game.
If you know a lot of people will settle for what's available by default they loose a lot of business right of the bat. Especially if the default comes free of charge.
Then there's the question of weather or not you trust MS not to abuse their position of power to drive you out of the market (history is pretty clear on that one: don't!)

Superior products don't win. They might in a perfectly free market, the software business isn't one - it's a monopoly, other rules apply.

Edited 2006-09-21 23:36

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Guaranteed market control?
by WorknMan on Thu 21st Sep 2006 23:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Guaranteed market control?"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Superior products don't win. They might in a perfectly free market, the software business isn't one - it's a monopoly, other rules apply.

I don't understand this statement when you yourself said a lot of people will settle on defaults, especially if they are free. So the consumer has a choice between an inferior free product and a superior commercial one .. that sounds like free market at work to me.

I say let MS include whatever the hell they want, as long as these two criteria are met:

1. End users have the ability to uninstall Microsoft's offerings
2. 3rd party apps are able to be used in place of whatever MS offers.

Edited 2006-09-21 23:48

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Guaranteed market control?
by twenex on Thu 21st Sep 2006 23:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Guaranteed market control?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

If it were true that customers base their buying decisions on looking at the best option, that would work. However experience has shown that customers (particularly in the consumer electronics industry, since most consumers (as they will readily admit) don't understand electronics) mostly choose either the cheapest option (which in this case involves sticking with MS's free, included software), or the default option (which in this case involves...).

Edited 2006-09-21 23:53

Reply Score: 4

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

If it were true that customers base their buying decisions on looking at the best option, that would work. However experience has shown that customers (particularly in the consumer electronics industry, since most consumers (as they will readily admit) don't understand electronics) mostly choose either the cheapest option (which in this case involves sticking with MS's free, included software), or the default option (which in this case involves...).

So, should we then say that the people are too stupid to make their own decisions, and so let the government decide for them? Isn't that what Communism is?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Guaranteed market control?
by twenex on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 17:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Guaranteed market control?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Communism doesn't seem to have worked well so far. Of course, it remains to be seen how well it will work if it is implemented once capitalism starts breaking down, which is the way Marx envisaged it happening - not in agrarian societies like Russia, Poland, and China.

The answer is that (a) capitalist democracy is, so far, the worst system, except for all the others; (b) the fact that capitalism doesn't produce a healthy outcome for the best product, and the death of all the others, is only a problem if you think that ending up with the best product is the AIM of capitalism; (c) unregulated capitalism, as someone else pointed out in this thread, is for idealists: like communism, it relies on everyone being honest/good/generous/trustworthy.

Reply Score: 1

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

(a) capitalist democracy is, so far, the worst system, except for all the others;

LOL, agree with this.

(b) the fact that capitalism doesn't produce a healthy outcome for the best product, and the death of all the others, is only a problem if you think that ending up with the best product is the AIM of capitalism;

Semi-agree with this. As I have been discussing the merits of open/closed-source software, I have found that 'best' is really in the eye of the beholder. For example, I assert that if you're comparing two software programs and one clearly has more functionality than the other (all other things being equal except for the license), I'd say that this program is the better one of the two. However, others would gladly accept a program with less functionality if it came with the source code. Some people consider better to be cheaper, no matter how superior the non-free version is. So, who's to say that they're wrong? Some people would rather buy a VCR for $30 rather than pay good money for one that's going to last more than a year.

(c) unregulated capitalism, as someone else pointed out in this thread, is for idealists: like communism, it relies on everyone being honest/good/generous/trustworthy.

I'd agree with this, but I'd change the last part to read 'it relies on everyone being informed' Point being, if you're not smart about things, you're going to get fleeced. Maybe that's not a good thing, but what is the alternative? The only one I could think of is to have the government start making these decisions for you, and I'd rather not have that happen.

EDIT: The more I think about it, I would say it is really socialism that demands people be good/trustworthy/etc. Capitalism just demands that you not be ignorant ;)

Edited 2006-09-22 19:33

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Guaranteed market control?
by Tyr. on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 00:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Guaranteed market control?"
Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't understand this statement when you yourself said a lot of people will settle on defaults, especially if they are free. So the consumer has a choice between an inferior free product and a superior commercial one .. that sounds like free market at work to me.

No. You've got a monopoly market (MS Windows) which is the enabler for the software market. Due to the nature of a monopoly market the monopolist can erect artifical barriers to entry. E.g. : they can make it expensive to develop alternatives (by changing APIs, requiring licenses to develop software), they can sabotage alternatives, they can gain unfair advantages from hidden knowledge about the platform.

This is not a level playing field, this is not a free market. It is also the reason why the DOJ originally advocated the splitting up of MS.

A more correct way of handling this would be to make extra's available as a (free or paid) download from MS. This doesn't leverage their monopoly power as much although they would still have an unfair advantage in potentially advertising their products directly to 100% of Windows users.

Edited 2006-09-22 00:38

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Guaranteed market control?
by rhyder on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 06:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Guaranteed market control?"
rhyder Member since:
2005-09-28

So true. So many people seem to miss the point that MS have to operate under special restrictions because they are a monopoly.

Reply Score: 1

I don't understand you...
by Kochise on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 12:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Guaranteed market control?"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

...while you speak correct english.

Understand me : Adobe/Symantec/... have not control over Microsoft's operating system. It's 100% Microsoft's design, 100% Microsoft venture, what the Hell are they wanting to FORCE Microsoft to do something in a way or another ?

If they REALLY want to put/embeed their superior quality stuff into an operating system, then why do not write their own ? Microsoft is NOT Adobe/Symantec/... customer, it's the other way around !

What puts me on my nerves : there is (several) other OS alternatives such Linux/SkyOS/... that Adobe/Symantec/... just NEGLECT ! Why the Hell (gosh, twice in a row) are they complaining/moaning/whatever Microsoft don't "open source" Windows for their benefit ? Why don't they just abandon Windows support and makes Linux/SkyOS/... real OS alternatives !

Because I see you, pulling my arguments such Linux/SkyOS/... aren't usable, there is no or only few professional application. Perhaps it's the right time schedule to proove the World Linux/SkyOS/... can be used as much than Windows...

I don't "like" Microsoft, but I support them on this one ! Windows is THEIR product, they can do what they want with, even providing 'free' application. Just to make thing clear :

- IE will never replace FireFox or Opera, far more secure and reliable
- Notpad will never replace OpenOffice
- Paint will never replace Gimp
- File Explorer will never replace Total Commander
- ...

So I just not understand the issue :/

Kochise

Reply Score: 1

v RE: I don't understand you...
by Ookaze on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 12:58 UTC in reply to "I don't understand you..."
You're not into it !
by Kochise on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 14:31 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't understand you..."
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Taking your example about cars : If GM sells me a car with an integrated autoradio, what prevent me to remove it to switch to another one, or just don't use it and put it another one aside ? GM's autoradio is provided for free, and is NOT AS FEATURED than the Pionner's one !

Imagine I had a old GM car with the Pionner autoradio. My old car was good, but reached its end of life. I remove the Pionner autoradio from the old car, buy a new one and reinstall my Pionner autoradio side to GM's and use my Pionner autoradio. GM could have every market share they wants, they cannot prevent me to install MY autoradio !

So do Microsoft, they cannot prevent me to install the software from Adobe/Symantec/... I WANT to use ! The freely provided implementation/piece of software aren't as useful as the one provided by Adobe/Symantec/..., so people WILL comes to contact Adobe/Symantec/... ! Don't forget that Windows is not released with Office preinstalled or Visio preinstalled or ... so there is room for market !

Now if the user find the little gadget-like utilities provided in every Windows installation useful enough, why will you FORCE Microsoft to remove them ? At 300 $, I want something else than just a raw file manager, I expect some kind utilitied preinstalled. What I do not want is to but an 'empty' operating system at 300 $ and to buy for another 200 $ several sharewares/utilities to makes my operating system at least usable !

If you compare on the other side, every Linuw distro are released with several preinstalled packages making a fully usable operating system out-of-the-box ! But this come with a price, all these application are not always compatible between each other. At least while using Microsoft's preinstalled utilities, you guarantee you can speak the same language (file format) with every other computer (RTF for Wordpad, BMP for Paint, etc...).

So the question REMAINS : why forcing Microsoft to preinstall some Adobe/Symantec/... components inplace of Microsoft's ? Microsoft and Adobe/Symantec/... aren't partners in creating a common task-group operating system names "Vista'n friends", this is just "Vista" and it's only Microsoft at the commandement !

I'm french, EU based, agree with the 'fair' trial made to Microsoft by the European Commission (understand Microsoft played the nuts for too long, EU aren't under their lobby, EU have rules about monopoly they're just trying to enforce where in US Bill Gates supported George W Bush to get a the trial canceled). I'm just fed up with this Microsoft stuff !

I'm not 10 years old, it's just everybody is spitting at Microsoft while licking their balls and kissing their ass ! Sure Microsoft have a 95% market share, and they had it with unfair practices. But it's EU commission to judge impartially all of this, without having parasits turning/lobbying around them.

And like I said, if Adobe/Symantec/... aren't happy with Microsoft, why don't they all join their forces to promote an alternative OS they could deliver customized releases/distos like some Linuxes one ? Why is there no Adobe Linux distro, no Symantec distro, no ... distro ? IBM made its choice and promote Linux based systems. If everyone disatisfied with Microsoft join the move, I think the 95% Microsoft market share could drop quite a bit !

Just to make you notice that the Ubuntu distro is quite a success because fully featured out-of-the-box. Instead to moan, Adobe/Symantec/... could provide their components to the Ubuntu team to implement in the next distro (6.10). I'm sure it will then have even more success and be installed on even more computers. So where's the problem ?

Kochise

Edited 2006-09-22 14:33

Reply Score: 2

RE: You're not into it !
by Flatland_Spider on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 18:24 UTC in reply to "You're not into it !"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

The Ubuntu team wouldn't ship the products unless they were open source or free, I think.

I agree with you though. Windows is not as dominate as it once was. If people aren't happy with them then they can buy an Apple or learn Linux.

The thing that would get MS in trouble is if the features aren't removable. As it stands I doubt MS will lock Norton or McAfee out of the OS since that would be anti-competitive. As such they are just providing basic functionality with XPS and the Security Center.

If security center is what I think it is then Symantec is just being a big baby; I'm assuming it's an update of the XP-SP2 security center that monitors various aspects of the os security.

I thought Symantec's big thing was that they wanted permission to modify the Kernel which I think is a horrible idea. I'd just rather let MS be the only ones who can touch the kernel, and I've felt that MS needs to lock applications out of the System Directory all together.

This is really a non-issue, and I hope the EU realizes this before they do something dumb like force MS to ship a stripped version.

Now that I think about it, why doesn't the EU start a state funded competitor to MS like they did with Boeing, they start Airbus, if they're so sick of it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I don't understand you...
by jcpinto on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 22:33 UTC in reply to "I don't understand you..."
jcpinto Member since:
2006-08-30

Exactly what I think... It's their system... And there are alternatives, so anyone can use what's best for them.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Guaranteed market control?
by twenex on Thu 21st Sep 2006 23:43 UTC in reply to "Guaranteed market control?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Linux distributions typically include more than one example of each application type, very few of which have anything to do with specific distributions (and even the vasty majority of those that do are not proprietary to that distribution), and none of which have (afaik) any relationship to the originator of the Linux kernel.

Even among distros which typically include only one example of each application type, not all of them choose exactly the same ones. And Apple's standard software suite is made by a competitor, too. So unless Apple or RH or Novell or Xandros or Linspire come up with agreements with 90%+ of PC suppliers to supply their OS with those suppliers' machines and no-one else's, AND provide a complete software stack, the same situation does not arise as it does in the "Windows world".

Reply Score: 1

will it harm consumers?
by Bit_Rapist on Thu 21st Sep 2006 21:59 UTC
Bit_Rapist
Member since:
2005-11-13

If a move like this were to hurt consumers I'd say there is an argument.

I can't for the life of me see how getting functionality for free harms me as a consumer so I'll have to say at this point that the arguments put forth by symantec and adobe is weak at best.

Reply Score: 1

RE: will it harm consumers?
by twenex on Thu 21st Sep 2006 23:47 UTC in reply to "will it harm consumers?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

It harms consumers by providing less choice. Allowing a vendor to have a de-facto monopoly increases the chances of the vendor supplying a product that is shoddy and/or overpriced, because he has no competition. Cases in point: IE between the fall of Netscape and the rise of Firefox, or just about anything in the Eastern Bloc.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: will it harm consumers?
by Flatland_Spider on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 18:45 UTC in reply to "RE: will it harm consumers?"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

Less choice how? Shoddy and overpriced pretty much defines Symantec, much less so with Adobe Acrobat.

The competition from MS will force Symantec to build a better product rather then the crap their stuff is now.

Adobe will have to step up and innovate on their PDF format. Better compression, closer integration with Flash, become much more web friendly. PDF is a good format, but it's not web savvy and is blight on the Internet. I personally avoid it, and use HTML if at all possible. Having PDF creating functionality is one thing since it hurts the Acrobat Authoring suite, but complaining about a rival file format is silly. They're just going to have to compete.

These guys had to have known this was coming since it's only a matter of time before stuff reaches critical mass and becomes a must have baseline feature, like an web browser. MS did overstep the line when they integrate IE, but they still needed to provide web browsing functionality in the base install.

Reply Score: 1

Parasite products
by vtolkov on Thu 21st Sep 2006 22:52 UTC
vtolkov
Member since:
2006-07-26

Imagine that some day (in another life, probably) MS creates perfectly secure OS. The same argument will apply: if will push antiviruses out of market!

The antiviruses can exist only because OS is not perfect. The same about the hated akrobat: it exists only because OS does not have standard portable document format.

So the Adobe and Semantec message is: "Do not allow MS to improve OS, we are used to parasite on it's weaknesses!"

Edited 2006-09-21 22:52

Reply Score: 5

Ever notice
by Sphinx on Thu 21st Sep 2006 23:08 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

How all the free apps included are the ones marketed by others. Wake me when they include word and excel.

Reply Score: 4

Antitrust law
by tomcat on Thu 21st Sep 2006 23:13 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

Antitrust law isn't supposed to protect competitors. It's supposed to prevent harm to competition. Adobe is very clearly worried about XPS (XML Paper Specification -- see http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/downloads.mspx for details). And Symantec is worried about Microsoft's Security Center.

MS submitted its XPS spec to ECMA org for ratification as a public standard. XPS is patented, but MS has agreed not to sue anyone who uses XPS for patent infringement. Adobe threatened MS with legal action if it included PDF support in Office. MS caved and made its Office PDF reader a free download, along with XPS support. Part of the reason MS pulled XPS support from Office, I think, is that it plans on including XPS support in Vista. Having XPS in both Windows and Office might have posed an antitrust problem. Is XPS anti-competitive? That is very difficult to say. First, it's not clear that XPS will really have any impact on the market. PDF has, like, 99% of the market for fixed-page document readers currently. This isn't a case of Microsoft going up against Netscape directly with a competing product (IE vs Navigator/Communicator). It's sort of orthogonal, and I would argue that the EU had better be very careful before interfering in this market.

Regarding Symantec, I think that as long as MS provides a way for Symantec and other competitors to plug into Security Center and replace MS's offerings, then MS has met the legal standard governing antitrust compliance. It still remains to be seen whether MS can offer its own solution by default. But, frankly, there's already a precedent with Windows Firewall. Symantec didn't complain about Windows Firewall because it isn't as full-featured as commercial offerings. As MS's products mature, entrenched competitors such as Symantec are starting to get worried. But where was Symantec years ago when MS released XP SP2 with Windows Firewall?!? It seems a little too little, a little too late for Symantec to start complaining now.

My two cents. For what it's worth.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Antitrust law
by n4cer on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 05:32 UTC in reply to "Antitrust law"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

MS submitted its XPS spec to ECMA org for ratification as a public standard.

I agree with the rest of your post, but here you're confusing XPS with Office Open XML. While they share the same Open Packaging Conventions, they are different formats, and only OOXML and the OPC have been submitted to ECMA. It's assumed that XPS may follow OOXML in being submitted to ECMA eventually, but currently it has not been, and also has not yet reached version 1.0 (it's currently at 0.95). XPS is, however, being offered by MS for anyone to implement under similar terms as OOXML. Windows Media Photo is also included under those terms when implemented as part of an XPS implementation.

Reply Score: 2

Symantec deserves the beating
by Moochman on Thu 21st Sep 2006 23:28 UTC
Moochman
Member since:
2005-07-06

Symantec and Mcafee have over the past decade degraded their products to the point where having them on your system is a fate almost as bad as a severe spyware infestation. They're shoddily put-together, barely updated but for the sake of squeezing the end user to get an upgrade, have ridiculous and broken subscription enforcement software, embed themselves deeply in Windows and cannot uninstall themselves to the point where it's impossible to install one vendor's solution over anothers without practically reinstalling Windows itself, and slow down the system to the point where the hard drive will probably die in half the normal time. Not only that, but the biggest brands are now less secure than the small ones because the virus writers target them specifically. Unfortunately, the public is so locked into their preinstalled package that they have no idea of the likes of Avast, AntiVir, and AVG, all free of charge and all of which work at least as well as the crappy big guys, without ruining the system.

I for one laud Microsoft for finally getting the mass market to move forward beyond the fraud outfits that call themselves "Security Vendors." Hip hip hooray, here comes a brighter day for Windows users!

Edited 2006-09-21 23:30

Reply Score: 3

RE: Symantec deserves the beating
by twenex on Thu 21st Sep 2006 23:33 UTC in reply to "Symantec deserves the beating"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I for one laud Microsoft for finally getting the mass market to move forward beyond the fraud outfits that call themselves "Security Vendors."

You laud them for stamping out "Security Vendors" by becoming one themselves?

Reply Score: 2

Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

No, I laud them for making better security products than the competition, thereby removing the cruft from a stagnating market and saving the consumer money and headaches. Based on my experience with MS Antispyware, which is the finest single antispyware program currently out there (and which will be included with Vista by default and for free), they seem to know what they are doing (even if they have had to buy other companies' technology to achieve their goals).

Reply Score: 1

Bullshit: Don't like it, Don't use it!
by jcpinto on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 00:39 UTC
jcpinto
Member since:
2006-08-30

So if linux ditros had 90% of the market do you think it could be applied to them?

My point of view is that the consumer pays for the tools in the price of the OS without knowing (or knows but don't care). However, I believe that since the OS is property of MicroSoft, it can do whatever it wants with it: including or not, allowing or not, embracing, extend, and lock in (or not)... that shit of monopoly in the OS are bullshit (monopoly from MS is with OEMs).

In the end, if the user is not happy with MS tools and systems, it can choose from many other vendors like Novell, RedHat, Apple or even using community tools... Anyone points a gun to your head and say: USE MICROSOFT!?!? If you use it, you must know that it's MICROSOFT SYSTEM and if the software publishers and developers don't like their way they can always develop to other systems!
It's THEIR SYSTEM... if you don't like it DON'T USE IT!

Reply Score: 2

Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

You think that because you're very young into computing. MS has already destroyed lots of better companies with better products, and the trend is not stopping.

I was thinking the same thing. Some people posting on this are either very young and don't know what the anti-trust trial was about, or they just misunderstood the whole thing.

I don't expect MS to stop turning out products in different markets since they are a software company after all. They just have to play nicer then they did in the past.

You realise this choice is not an easy one ? No you don't. And that's all because of MS and its monopoly.

It's not because of a monopoly. It's because no one has challenged them on key features. Apple could challenge on the desktop, but they're happy with their hardware and ten percent. Linux might be able to challenge in linking desktops, but Active Directory, Exchange, and dime a dozen MCSEs are MS's aces. It's all about the feature set.

Adobe is just worried about getting their monopoly challenged. Nothing to cry about there.

Edited 2006-09-22 19:16

Reply Score: 1

jcpinto Member since:
2006-08-30

You can do what you want to your car, even include some space rockets on it, and lights that blind everything 1 mile around. You just can go out on the street with it.
There are laws you know, and they are annoying only to evil people most of the time (except when evil people make the laws of course).


Maybe because cars ARE NOT OSs. In the day I have to take a license to use my PC, I'll accept your analogy ;)

You think that because you're very young into computing.

I just think that, because good engineered software should be independent of platform!

MS has already destroyed lots of better companies with better products, and the trend is not stopping.
I'd love to see MS go free with their monopoly, so that people take so much abuse they finally realise the problem.


That's my point... I think we all know that MS had killed many companies. Many of them in an anti-trusted way.

Meanwhile, I just laugh at all these companies being destroyed one after another. After all, they helped MS maintain the statu quo. Especially Adobe or antivirus companies, I have just no sympathy for them.

Exactly... that companies put themselfs in that position when they decided to be developers of only one OS which is proprietary and they can't control.

You realise this choice is not an easy one ? No you don't. And that's all because of MS and its monopoly.

While it certanly poses its difficults the hardest in any migration are legacy/vertical apps (and it's data). Obviously, Microsoft tries to lock in it's users, but that's not the main difficult in a migration.
Neverless, as any "not so young" into computing should know, almost any data could be migrated in computing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphism)

You're not smoking, you're just plain stupid.

Well... we can't all be smart asses!

The problem here is that these businesses are based on Windows. Antivirus companies have no future outside of Windows, which is the only crappy OS needing them. Same for Adobe, that's their largest market share (or so it seems).
MS can make apps for its OS, but when they include them in their OS (thus dumping the others), if you don't realise there's a problem, I can't help you.


If antivirus companies have no future outside of Windows then they only exist because of Windows. In a Free Market, if I only depend on a "resource" to "produce" something, if that resource ever cease to exist, I'll be extincted.

Should I conclude by your sentence that Microsoft should never distribute Secure/More Functional OSs per default just because that could lead to extinction of some Software Developers?

Reply Score: 1

Adobe is the abuser
by Marcellus on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 04:48 UTC
Marcellus
Member since:
2005-08-26

I think it's really interesting that Adobe is allowed to force Microsoft to REMOVE support for a supposedly open format.

Even more interesting that Adobe have complaints about XPS, when they've been working actively together with Microsoft on... you guessed it... XPS!

Considering how anti-MS the EU Commission is, I wouldn't be surprised to see them take up on these complaints too.

Regarding security software... The vendors complaints here is about PatchGuard, which prevents you from patching kernel stuff without going through specific defined API's. At the same time they refer to a year old paper that describe techniques that hackers could use to go around PatchGuard... With noone mentioning if MS fixed these "holes" or not by now.

In effect, what Symantec and others want is to make Windows Vista less secure in order to protect their own market.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Adobe is the abuser
by Manik on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 12:10 UTC in reply to "Adobe is the abuser"
Manik Member since:
2005-07-06

The EU Commission is not anti-MS, it's just pro-competition, pro-consumer, pro-EU laws.

Reply Score: 1

flanqueCalc!
by flanque on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 05:05 UTC
flanque
Member since:
2005-12-15

Wow, I hope Microsoft will exclude their Calculator program just so MY calculator program (which is super secret, only exists on my HDD until it's launched) has a fair chance at competing against Microsoft!!

Reply Score: 2

symantec pssh
by borat on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 08:28 UTC
borat
Member since:
2005-11-11

this litigous society we have is getting rather worrisome. i certainly won't be buying vista but i feel microsoft is completely within the law to try to make its product better. it has done nothing to lock out symantec or adobe. symantec is whining that the mere inclusion of a competing product is some how against the law. if microsoft deliberatly blocked the installation of adobe reader... then i could understand.

symantec has been whining a lot lately. i trust symantec about as much as trust norton internet security's uninstaller to remove all its crap (^_^). they've been creating lots of FUD about vista lately so people will think they need symantec products.

symantec has been whining about patch guard hindering there ability to make their software. http://news.com.com/Windows+defense+handcuffs+good+guys/2100-7355_3...
sorry symantec, microsoft provides plenty of hooks and apis to file and network accesses. i don't want you're bloated mess software patching my windows kernel! sheesh

Edited 2006-09-22 08:32

Reply Score: 2

RE: symantec pssh
by Flatland_Spider on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 19:19 UTC in reply to "symantec pssh"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

I'm wondering if Symantec isn't just complaining because they are going to have to recode their suite since MS might have stripped out a lot hacks that Norton needed to work.

Reply Score: 1

Adobe and Symantec = cry babies
by MollyC on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 11:37 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

Notice how these American companies complain about another American company to the EU rather than the US, which would be the natural jurisdiction in which to deal with these issues (what with all the companies being American, after all)? That’s because they know that their case is so weak that they have to cherry-pick a government body that is predisposed to rule against Microsoft on any and every issue, that being the ECC, which so hates MS that rational thought is beyond them.

First, I’ll deal with Adobe’s complaints regarding XPS. First, note that MS has kept Adobe in the loop regarding XPS for years now, including making changes based on Adobe's input. So Adobe knew about XPS long before now (see the below URL). Adobe currently enjoys a monopoly in presentation document formats, that being PDF. Adobe, afraid to compete on features, scared that XPS is superior (and XPS does indeed have all of PDF’s functionality and then some, though future versions of PDF might catch up), is whining to the EU to preclude having to compete with XPS. And here’s the kicker: Microsoft already removed most of XPS from Vista in response to Adobe’s earlier threats to whine tot the EU! The only part of XPS that’s still “native” to Vista is that used by Vista’s printer spool (which greatly enhances printing for all apps, and which Adobe claims not to have a problem with). But Microsoft is still allowing OEMs to include the full XPS functionality (which I assume is the the ability to read, view, and export XPS, and associated apis), on their own accord.
See http://blogs.msdn.com/andy_simonds/archive/2006/06/02/XPSAdobe.aspx

This isn’t good enough for Adobe. They don’t just want “native support” for XPS stripped from Vista (which MS has already done), they even want to bar OEMs from including it. Talk about whining! Adobe, get a clue: improve PDF so that it catches up to and surpasses XPS so that you actually compete on features rather than running to a government body that despises MS in order to get that body to protect your presentation document format monopoly for you.

(Adobe’s actions regarding Office 2007’s PDF and XPS support are even more reprehensible. Adobe, desperate to protect its Office->PDF conversion monopoly threatened to whine to the EU if MS didn’t pull PDF and XPS support from Office 2007. But get this, Adobe proposed to MS that they wouldn’t have a problem with Office 2007 including PDF and XPS support out of the box if MS raised the price of Office 2007 for this functionality so as not to undercut Adobe’s Office->PDF monopoly. In other words, Adobe proposed that they and MS collude in price-fixing regarding Office->PDF conversion functionality. Despicable behavior on Adobe’s part. Of course, the EU has no problem with a company proposing to another to engage in collusion and price-fixing as long as it hurts MS in some manner, even if it's done to protect a monopoly (that being Adobe's Office->PDF conversion monopoly).


As for Symantec, their complaints are even more without merit. Imagine for a moment that with Vista SP1 Microsoft achieved the previously unattainable goal of a “perfectly secure” OS. According to Symantec, it would be illegal for MS to release it since it would hurt their business. Symantec, get a clue: business models don’t last forever! You can always s go back to what you did before you got fat off security software (development tools (Symantec used to make good C-based IDEs for the Mac), shell enhancements (Norton Desktop was a great alternative shell for Win 3.x), PC software utilities (which used to be Symantec’s bread and butter), etc). You don’t *have* to rely on security software, which is destined to become more and more irrelevant as Windows gets more and more secure.

Sadly, the ECC, filled with hatred for Microsoft, will rule in favor of Adobe and Symantec. Hopefully this will only affect the Euro-version of Vista.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Adobe and Symantec = cry babies
by Kochise on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 15:05 UTC in reply to "Adobe and Symantec = cry babies"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

I follow you on the most part, just to correct you : the EU commission is not against Microsoft, it's against Microsoft practices which, may I remind you, not the most fair amongst others. They're not threatening Microsoft on their bare name, just on legal OEMs complaints (tricking the price of Windows and getting them out of the market if they don't comply). It's not about the software components issue...

Kochise

Reply Score: 1

Jealous !!!
by microFawad on Fri 22nd Sep 2006 11:52 UTC
microFawad
Member since:
2005-12-09

Adobe and Symantec are clearly jealous from Vista's features that people will stop buying there new products...huh...SUCKERS

Reply Score: 1