Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Feb 2008 18:33 UTC, submitted by JJ
"Microsoft was fined a record 899 million euros (USD 1.35 billion) by the European Commission on Wednesday for using high prices to discourage software competition in the latest sanction in their long-running battle. The executive arm of the European Union said the U.S. software group defied a 2004 order from Brussels to provide the information on reasonable terms. Microsoft has now been fined a total of 1.68 billion euros by the EU for abusing its 95 percent dominance of PC operating systems through Windows."
Thread beginning with comment 302758
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-03-12
Perhaps, in some peoples' fantasy world, everyone should pay for a media player. Or a web browser. Or notepad. Or paint. Or solitaire. Or other least-common-denominator software that just about everyone uses. But that isn't reality. Practically nobody buys commercial versions of basic apps when there are perfectly good free choices on the market (WinAmp, FireFox, Flash, etc). So, really, those apps don't (and shouldn't) affect the price of Windows.
It has nothing to do with creating a lucrative market for basic apps. It's about allowing software to compete on the platform. If you delete RealPlayer, it's gone. If you delete Windows Media Player, it respawns itself before your eyes, and when you run it, you get an advertisement of your choice from among a handful of Windows Media download services offering files that require Windows Media Player on Windows to keep playing. The de facto installed position of that software allows Microsoft to create dependence before customers are aware of lock-in or alternatives. The EU sees that tactic as abusive. I tend to agree.
Member since:2006-01-06
It has nothing to do with creating a lucrative market for basic apps. It's about allowing software to compete on the platform.
They already have that freedom. Third parties are free to negotiate with OEMs such as Dell and Gateway and IBM to include their software. Google does it. So do other companies.
The de facto installed position of that software allows Microsoft to create dependence before customers are aware of lock-in or alternatives. The EU sees that tactic as abusive. I tend to agree.
That's nonsense. Nobody is "dependent" on or "locked-in" to the Microsoft apps (Media Player, IE, etc). There are plenty of free alternatives. FireFox is eating IE's lunch in the EU -- perhaps somebody should email a clue to Kroes -- despite this so-called "lock-in".
Member since:2005-07-06
Samba is a perfect example of an excellent product that has succeeded in spite of no docs.
That was easy: a lot of guys working on Samba came from Microsoft and left because Microsoft wanted more compatibility with older software, the developers didn't like it and joined (or started?) Samba. So specs where not needed.
Member since:2005-12-01
I don't know which reality you live in that this occurred.
I'm sure Andrew Tridgell and Jeremy Allison appreciated the help of all these programmers when they were reverse engineering the protocol by looking at the bytes going over the wire (that was sarcasm, by the way, in case you didn't realize). Oh wait, they didn't get any help.
If you want to spout bullshit like you just did, you better be able to back it up with trustworthy links stating what you just said. Which you won't be able to.
Not to mention that Microsoft developers who did this would be sued into the ground for divulging trade secrets.
In summary, you're a f--king dumbass sack of shit, and you're talking out of your ass.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-06
Yeah, they generate voluminous amounts of paper, hot air, and fines.
That is debatable. We don't know the impact of the lack of interop documentation on the marketplace. Samba is a perfect example of an excellent product that has succeeded in spite of no docs.
Perhaps, in some peoples' fantasy world, everyone should pay for a media player. Or a web browser. Or notepad. Or paint. Or solitaire. Or other least-common-denominator software that just about everyone uses. But that isn't reality. Practically nobody buys commercial versions of basic apps when there are perfectly good free choices on the market (WinAmp, FireFox, Flash, etc). So, really, those apps don't (and shouldn't) affect the price of Windows.