"It's been a good week for Microsoft's documentation efforts as the company achieved important milestones with regulators on both sides of the Atlantic. US antitrust authorities signed off on Vista and IE7 and announced that Microsoft was making good progress in its efforts to document certain server protocols in Windows. In Europe, where Microsoft has encountered more problems and increased fines over the state of its documentation, the company got a rare bit of good news as the European Commission completed its initial review of the revised documents."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-06-01
The issue was raised by Media player companies in a business scenario, the reason that NO ONE BOUGHT THE EDITION WITHOUT MEDIA PLAYER is because the Media companies knew that they would never be able to spend enough money on advertising to enthuse the general public into buying N.
I can see the ads: "Windows N - Less features!"
Of course your argument is completely wrong. Consumers were not harmed (in fact they received a benefit) by the inclusion of Media Player.
No amount of money spent on advertising could disguise the fact that the EU were wrong.
"consumer apathy"
People like features. If the features existed in other Media Players, the consumers could get them with a couple of clicks. No amount of money could fool people into think that Windows without a Media Player is a bad thing.
And people were smart enough to know that Microsoft had a duty to their customers to add useful features.
Windows EUnuch was not necessary. Bundling a Media Player is not a crime. The Eurocrats are corrupt.
Of course, the EU Commission is well known for its scandals:
"Barroso's Commission faced another scandal when, shortly before the Commission entered office, it was revealed by United Kingdom Independence Party MEP Nigel Farage that Jacques Barrot, the commissioner from France, had been convicted of fraud in 2000. After this, Barrot had received a presidential amnesty from Jacques Chirac, making it illegal in France to even mention his conviction."
Wikipedia
Microsoft has more moral weight thean the scandal plagued EU.
Member since:2006-06-03
making it illegal in France to even mention his conviction.
You're wrong. It is illegal for a french elected official to mention such a conviction only when they get the information based on privileged information. This is NOT a general prohibition on mentioning the conviction.
The fact that 'Jacques Barrot' failed to disclose his conviction was(IANAL so this is personal opinion) wrong.
Perhaps you don't understand the subtleties of "consumer apathy" but the point is that, in the long term, competition is a good thing, ot drives market prices down and increases competition. Most consumers are only aware about their next purchase, not the state of the market in 5/10 years. It is the duty of the law to take these sorts of considerations into account.
Because I've lost my trust in you grasping what this means; Microsoft Windows Vista costs from between $200-$400. Internet Explorer and WMP are 'free', yet Microsoft have to pay the developers for their time (shareholder responsibility). Therefore part of the cost of Vista must be paying the developers to program IE and WMP. ...therefore there is a closed market. Microsoft have a virtual monopoly on the OS market and by implication ('consumer apathy') Media Player and Browser markets. Without competition, there is little limit on what microsoft can charge for the 'privilege' of getting WMP free with Windows.
Member since:2006-01-06
That's because the ruling was bad IMO (but the best that the EU were allowed to do). The problem of anti-competitiveness is NOT a consumer problem. The issue was raised by Media player companies in a business scenario, the reason that NO ONE BOUGHT THE EDITION WITHOUT MEDIA PLAYER is because the Media companies knew that they would never be able to spend enough money on advertising to enthuse the general public into buying N. Most of the consumers don't care, it's the other companies that do care.
It's a well-known scenario, called apathy, i.e. Voter apathy, consumer apathy etc.
Look, YOU were the one who claimed that the EU's Media Player ruling made Europe more of a "free society". So how, exactly, does a ruling that has had ZERO IMPACT on the market -- since NO ONE bought Windows N w/o Media Player -- make you more free? And, before you pull some tortured hypothetical out of your rear end to justify your foolish statements, I think that most people would agree that the ruling actually lowered the IQ of Europe; hence, you're less free, because you're slaves to the intellectual simpletons at the EU commission.
Member since:2006-06-03
Look, YOU were the one who claimed that the EU's Media Player ruling made Europe more of a "free society".
I don't think so, I was claiming that the EU ruling was the RESULT of having a more free society.
actually lowered the IQ
I'm not sure that's possible. People tend to have an Intelligence Quota that varies with Age, not the posturings of international Lawyers. Sorry.
slaves to the intellectual simpletons at the EU commission.
At least these intellectual simpletons aren't trying to force Intelligent Design into the impressionable minds of children trying to learn science.
Member since:
2006-06-03
NO ONE BOUGHT THE EDITION WITHOUT MEDIA PLAYER
That's because the ruling was bad IMO (but the best that the EU were allowed to do). The problem of anti-competitiveness is NOT a consumer problem. The issue was raised by Media player companies in a business scenario, the reason that NO ONE BOUGHT THE EDITION WITHOUT MEDIA PLAYER is because the Media companies knew that they would never be able to spend enough money on advertising to enthuse the general public into buying N. Most of the consumers don't care, it's the other companies that do care.
It's a well-known scenario, called apathy, i.e. Voter apathy, consumer apathy etc..