A coalition of rivals charged on Friday that Microsoft’s new Vista operating system coming out next week will perpetuate practices found illegal in the European Union nearly three years ago. The group, which includes IBM, Nokia, Sun Microsystems, Adobe, Oracle and Red Hat, said its complaints made last year are yet to be addressed just days before Vista is due for release.
Isn’t this investigation running a bit late? What exactly are they thinking of doing with it a few days before the Vista release?
I guess they could slap a fine them again, of course a better alternative is to just ban vista being sold in the EU for again Microsoft again failing to meet legal requirements, that will certainly show them, but what’s the chance of that happening? yeah probably zero.
Well, having yet another EU-specific version of Windows that will get no attention, no publicity and thus, won’t be used by more than a few. If they hate MSFT policies so much, then go a ban them (or ban the problematic products) and quit bitching. Maybe it’s just a way to get some money, it’s not like MSFT can’t afford it.
If they hate MSFT policies so much, then go a ban them (or ban the problematic products) and quit bitching. Maybe it’s just a way to get some money, it’s not like MSFT can’t afford it.
I don’t really understand, who do you address? It’s the group of mostly American corporations (one from Finland), not the EU, that comes with the charges. The EU has rules, sure they will look into this.
So why this accusation of the EU “bitching”?
Isn’t this investigation running a bit late? What exactly are they thinking of doing with it a few days before the Vista release?
I guess they could slap a fine them again, of course a better alternative is to just ban vista being sold in the EU for again Microsoft again failing to meet legal requirements, that will certainly show them, but what’s the chance of that happening? yeah probably zero.
MS is still going to court over the original complaint, this is about hurting their case and appeals they might make by launching an official complaint concerning their non-compliance with their latest os release. Just making it nice and official for the courts,.
Nothing New Here. MS is continuing what it has been doing for years and sometimes in the face of Legal Rulings against them.
I wonder if the EU will see this as a slap in the face with a wet fish and increase the amount of daily fines they are imposing on MS
Somehow, I doubt it. Sigh.
I see another long and protracted court case EU vs MS Part 2.
Speaking of fish slapping, I hope EU pulls this on MS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJQp-q1Y1s
The last time this happened, you ordered MS to produce a version of its OS which nobody bought. So, what’s the point? This is beginning to look like a big shakedown with no practical teeth.
The American Government put a lot of pressure on the EU not to do anything effective (like ban Microsoft etc..) so instead some politician came up with this compromise of Windows N. Now if the US Govt. were to get out of bed with the corporations…
If only I could give you extra mod points…this is the REAL issue. The US government is long know for political interference in non US countries, to ensure that US corporations get preferential [both economic and legal] treatment. This is why I’m a firm believer in that full economic sanctions by the EU need to be taken against the US. If only politicians had backbones…
Dave
Of course nobody bought it. Nobody is advertising for XP N. Do you honestly think Average Joe will buy a product he doesn’t even know about?
If I could get a version of Win2K3 _without_ Media Player, I’d use it. But since it’s unavailable on MSDN AA (the same goes for XP N), I’ll just keep using the version with Media Player (aka GAPING_SECURITY_HOLE) installed
I know you’re fond of being a MS-apologist, but at least you could use your own mind.
. o O ( Average Joe buying a product he doesn’t even know exist… come on Tomcat! You can do much better )
How is WMP a gaping security hole if you’re not running it? I actually haven’t heard of many complaints about its security in any case, so I’m inclined to think you’re trolling.
Windows Media Player’s WMV format supports licenses. This provides a means for hackers to pull-in viruses and spyware onto an unsuspecting machine, simply by trying to play a movie.
Downright stupidity, really.
–The loon
Regardless if WMV supports licenses it’s dead on to make a malignent *.wmv file.The licences should support verification just to be sure a package hasn’t been screwed with.
It is possible to run WMP without knowing it. Like watching a movie clip in IE
WMP is not just a front end but also a framework. And it’s quite insecure according to Secunia. Perhaps the only insecure Media Player (I’m not aware of the situation for Mac OS X).
So, let me get this straight. You want the EU to order MS to unbundle various components from its OS; then, you want the EU to force MS to advertise the unbundled version?!? That’s hilarious, dude! And, on top of that, you actually think that consumers are going to choose a product with fewer features over one with Media Player, etc. Sounds like a disconnect from reality. I know that YOU might choose that, but I would argue that the vast majority of consumers don’t want fewer features. It’s the same reason why Microsoft sells so many licenses of XP Pro versus XP Home.
So, let me get this straight.
You are not getting it straight at all. You are giving me motives, you do not have the slightest reason to give me.
You want the EU to order MS to unbundle various components from its OS;
No, I don’t. I have never stated that anywhere! What I did write was that Average Joe cannot be expected to buy a lesser bloated version of Windows without knowing it exists.
then, you want the EU to force MS to advertise the unbundled version?!?
I have never stated any such thing. It would be most unacceptable IMHO. What I stated was merely that XP N sold/sells poorly because very few knew/know of its existance. You use the poor salesnumbers as an argument despite the fact that nobody advertises XP N. If people had advertised for XP N and it still sold poorly then your argument would have been valid. As it stands now you are jumping to a conclusion you cannot backup with facts.
And, on top of that, you actually think that consumers are going to choose a product with fewer features over one with Media Player, etc.
Some would, some wouldn’t. But you do realize that all it would take for a person to get WMP or another media player would be to install it? It wouldn’t cripple the system as MS claims. It would merely give the user the choice of running without one, or choosing a media player according to his/her wishes.
XP Home sells better than XP Pro (at least in Denmark). XP Home is shipped with every computer and so far I haven’t seen a single XP Pro at home. At workplaces the situation is clearly different. The majority is Win2K or WinXP Pro.
EDITED: Fixed a typo (but –> buy)
Edited 2007-01-27 23:12
You use the poor salesnumbers as an argument despite the fact that nobody advertises XP N.
Face it: There isn’t any *demand* for such a product. Advertising has nothing to do with it. It’s like trying to sell a car without the back seat for the same price as a car with a back seat. Nobody wants that.
Well, it depends whether or not they can get the extra backseat for free or not
Besides XP N is more like getting a car with a lower fuel consumption for the same price – and everybody wants that.
And add to that: There are many products that sell well without having a true demand. A demand is something you create – usually through advertising. Like a demand for Windows Vista.
“”Vista is the first step of Microsoft’s strategy to extend its market dominance to the Internet,” the ECIS statement said.
It said Microsoft’s XAML markup language was “positioned to replace HTML,” the industry standard for publishing documents on the Internet.”
How could XAML replace HTML? It is for a totally different purpose. XAML is for defining User Interfaces, within the framework of .net 3.0. HTML is for defining how a web document looks. Am I missing something here? Looks like 2 totally different areas to me, UI Presentation and Document Layout/presentation.
The browser needs to know how to use XAML.
So if I am running firefox, and I try to browse a site that uses XAML. I am out of luck
That is entirely incorrect. XAML isn’t even used in any of the .Net 3.0 web technologies, it’s specific to WPF (the successor to WinForms). No web. None. Zero. Zilch.
“That is entirely incorrect. XAML isn’t even used in any of the .Net 3.0 web technologies, it’s specific to WPF (the successor to WinForms). No web. None. Zero. Zilch.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Application_Markup_Language
Not according to MS and Wikipedia….
I assume you are referring to this line:
“Microsoft’s XAML markup language was “positioned to replace HTML,” the industry standard for publishing documents on the Internet.”
In that case, the Wiki entry is wrong. Even more interesting, it appears that the Wiki entry is being edited even as I type this to represent more factual information, and that line no longer exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extensible_Application_Ma…
XAML has about as much in common with HTML as XML does, i.e. they both use <> to delimit markup and that’s about it. XAML binaries (.baml) files can be hosted in a web broswer via the WPF (or WPF/e) runtime ala java applets/embedded flash/etc, however it is still a native WPF application…the actual XAML is NOT being parsed by the browser, but rather by the runtime engine.
Please do your homework before believing everything you read on Wikipedia.
“I assume you are referring to this line:
“Microsoft’s XAML markup language was “positioned to replace HTML,” the industry standard for publishing documents on the Internet.”
In that case, the Wiki entry is wrong. Even more interesting, it appears that the Wiki entry is being edited even as I type this to represent more factual information, and that line no longer exists. “
That is exactly the line from the article I pulled out and referenced in my original post. Also why I posted the wikipedia link. Those 2 do not seem to go together. The Wiki mentions that it is used in .NET 3.0, for WPF. Hence my original post was asking how it could replace HTML since it is different. Maybe I worded it badly, but in short I agree with what you wrote and is the same thing I was getting at originally.
“The browser needs to know how to use XAML.
So if I am running firefox, and I try to browse a site that uses XAML. I am out of luck”
Got it, thanks. I wasn’t even thinking about that. The web browser should not be used for pure apps IMO, maybe I am just old fashioned. I don’t consider Online banking or such to be an app since it all runs server side and not locally.
and if you are running IE and you go to a site that uses XUL you are also out of luck.
XAML and XUL are necessary because the current state of web applications is a bunch of very nasty hacks attempting to turn document layout in to UI layout.
You’re right, and it would be nice if Microsoft created a new industry group that worked on these standards; its a benefit to them because they can get their products on the net and rent them, and its a benefit to consumers as it allows us to choose browsers based on our needs rather than what works with a said provider.
//and if you are running IE and you go to a site that uses XUL you are also out of luck.
XAML and XUL are necessary because the current state of web applications is a bunch of very nasty hacks attempting to turn document layout in to UI layout.//
This is true. XAML and XUL are both effectively the products of a sole vendor. The only real difference is that XAML is ambiguously licensed and the development environment for it is proprietary and Windows-only, where XUL is cross-platform, licensed under GPL/MPL and there is no development environment required other than a text editor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_user_interface_markup_la…
Neither XAML nor XUL should be a standard though … the standard should be XForms. XForms is the only one that is vendor neutral, cross-platform, licensed for all to use and it does not require a development environment beyond a text editor.
UIML is the only one approved by a standards body, but the license for its use is unclear.
XForms is therefore undoubtedly the way to go.
You don’t need a development environment to write XAML. You can do it all in notepad or any other editor and compile with freely available tools.
What your missing is that the Web is no longer mostly made up of traditional ‘Documents’. Most web content nowadays is in the form of Web applications or Blogs. Now XAML (Browser plugin or not) allows people to easily present data/interfaces in a manner that is more visually appealing than HTML, while potentially maintaining the Accessibility and ease-of-data-management that is traditionally lost with Flash.
I think that the idea of people embedding 3d interfaces into websites is one that is particularly appealing to marketing managers, and I can easily imagine Microsoft releasing a supercharged version of Live maps to take advantage of XAML.
Open Standards, and cross-browser support, however would fly straight out the window. (And don’t even dare mention Mono, MS will make sure that Mono is kept at least 5 years behind .net)
“What your missing is that the Web is no longer mostly made up of traditional ‘Documents’. Most web content nowadays is in the form of Web applications or Blogs. Now XAML (Browser plugin or not) allows people to easily present data/interfaces in a manner that is more visually appealing than HTML, while potentially maintaining the Accessibility and ease-of-data-management that is traditionally lost with Flash.”
I’ll agree with that. I think of HTML and I think of static web pages. I guess I am the one who needs to get with the program. I don’t consider Blogs, which are a front end to a database, and being in a web browser not run locally, an application. I probably need to fix my definitions, as I am sure I am wrong. Time to get with the 2000’s for me eh?? hehe
Yeah just think of it like a dumb terminal. Th web browser is a dumb terminal onto the server-side web app. With XAML it’ll be like moving from an 80 column green screen to a full colour GUI, and it’s tied to MS applications (on the server-side). So my clients are going to say “well we want apps with these shiny interfaces” but they’ll only work with windows servers running .Net, which’ll will ‘encourage’ developers to move.
There is XUL, but MS’s dominance of the browser market means it’s never going to be feasible to roll out XUL in any major non-intranet app.
MS has already published its security APIs to third party security vendors. Is MS forced to deliberately release unsecure system just to make these companies able to provide “help”?
“IBM, Nokia, Sun Microsystems, Adobe, Oracle and Red Hat”
Look at the List…Look at it again…Look at it a third time.
Spot the Third Party Security Vendor.
It would seem that you are under the wrong impression that MS is in a business of making secure OS for the sake of its customers. They are not. They are in the business of making money with as little spending as possible. They have identified that third party security vendors are making money and they want a piece of it. A LARGE piece of it. They want it all. Just like they did in other fields. MS is all about monopoly and money. They are also trying to monopolize middleware market using their monopoly of desktop OS, that’s why RH and IBM are complaining, as well as universal e-documents thats why ADOBE is complaining. EU has its own rules, and if MS violates them, then they will be slapped. How hard? Remains to be seen. I’d like it to be hard just to prevent reocurance. But do not kidd youself into thinking that MS is in it for some noble principles.
How to respond, how to respond…
Hate to rain on your tyrade there, but I’m gonna venture out on a limb and guess that the money the security vendors are making is chump change compared to what MS pulls in off of Windows sales alone (that doesn’t even take into account Office sales, or server sales, or support contracts, etc)…in case you didn’t see their last quarters’ numbers, they did over 12b in revenues in a 3 month span. They are charging 50 bucks a year for a WLOC…hardly a cash cow.
In the business of making money w/ as little spending as possible? They spend over 5b annually just in R&D alone…most of the R&D ideas never make it into any of their actual product lines. Yeah, they spend as little as possible.
The truth is this: their customers wanted a larger portfolio of security products, and who do you think the general public is going to trust more when it comes to securing an OS… A) the vendor of said OS or B) a 3rd party.
The truth is that if the security vendors had enough faith in their own products (which are largely crap), they’d have nothing to worry about from a little competition. They need to grow up, realize that they can’t churn out any more crapware, and compete like adults.
No matter what the operating system is do the following:
1. Tighten down the permissions on each file as much as you can.
2. Get as many of the programs to get run by user accounts with as limited permissions as possible
3. Have an in- and outbound firewall.
4. Have a malware scanner running.
5. Have a second malware scanner from a different vendor running.
6. Have a third malware scanner from another different vendor running.
That means to properly get a computer secure for financial or other highly exposed areas, several vendors must be able to make their scanners fully operational.
So making Microsoft to NOT use their monopoly power by scooping up the malware scanner market with price dumping is actually a good investment in Europe’s future IT infrastructure. MS, according to your post, charges so little money for it’s malware scanner products, that it will earn no (or little) money from that business unit.
That is exactly the kind of behaviour which is clearly illegal for a company which already has a monopoly – to use that one monopoly to get another monopoly in a different market.
The question for me is: Will the EU commission punish MS finally in a way which makes MS not try these moves ever again.
It seems, they need to be fined much much more than the 500 million Euros they can apparently earn back within one week. Maybe they have to fine them 500 million Euros a week to make MS change their tactics.
Sorry for replying so late to your post, but better late then never.
It would appear that you have a dislike for security vendors. Nothing wrong with that. I, too, have a strong dislike for most of them. Having said that, let’s get back at the issue on hand. And that is abuse of the monopoly position that MS has established in the desktop OS market, to drive segments of software/security vendors out of business. The issue is not about competition of similar software products. There is a big difference, which I hope you can see. By the way this would not be the first time MS would behave in this way, examples are plentyfull. As far as your question:
“who do you think the general public is going to trust more when it comes to securing an OS.”
Best answer would be: let the customers decide Vs. deciding for them
My personal answer (probably not the best):
I would hesitate (to say the least) to trust a company that has distributed an unsecure OS for years.
MS will probably end up with European version of Vista.
DG
“N” (sans media player) editions of Vista already exist. They are included, as with all other editions, on the standard Vista DVD.
If you choose not to enter a serial number during Vista install, you can choose which edition you wish to install, “N” editions are shown on that list.
Off Topic
=========
I love computing, seriously I do. I’ve been in computing a long time.
I’m annoyed that any this becomes an attack or defense of Microsoft with widely off topic posts.
The reality for Microsoft supporter should appreciate. Is that competition is a wonderful wonderful thing. Thats the point.
To get a *better* Microsoft product you need competition. I don’t know why everyone is not singing from the same hymnsheet on this one.
Its about time Microsoft did some innovation instead of talking about it.
This is not an article about innovation at all. It’s an article about the legalisms that Microsoft has embroiled itself into. There is almost no on-topic comment on this thread that would not be either an attack on or a defence of microsoft. It’s just the nature of this industry.
Now I agree that competition is a good thing, but I totally see why it hasn’t really arisen. Microsoft has done a good job of beating back any challengers and it probably won’t be overthrown by a direct frontal assault. I think someone else on this forum said it best a couple of months ago, and I paraphrase: “The most successful competitors to Microsoft these days all realize that they can win without making Microsoft lose.” Apple certainly has done this by branching out into alternative markets and then using their successful music device to feed back in to their computer sales.
Linux is starting to gain some traction like that too, but large shifts in market dominance take time. Rather than whining that a change isn’t happening immediately, let it evolve slowly. Don’t forget that it has only been a couple of years (5 or 6 at most) that Linux has been easy enough on desktop and mobile computers for average consumers. It took an equally long time for people to move in significant numbers from DOS-based apps and games to Windows ones. It will take longer for people to move from Windows only because Windows will be improving along with its eventual replacement. But legislatively mandating it is probably good for no one and indicates that these competitors don’t believe in their own solutions.
What’s interesting about those legalisms is that I’ve rarely ever come across a particular case in which Microsoft was the plaintiff.
Usually, it’s every other company or entity which seeks to sue Microsoft over something of major, historical proportions, or at least be a testifying party for the prosecution: Apple, DOJ, Netscape, Adobe, Opera, etc.
Microsoft, OTOH, has only pulled out their legal team over something trivial, like an ex-employee (the Kai Fu-Lee case, in which Google countersued) or a similarly-named trademark (the case with Linspire, then known as Lindows), and does it comparatively little.
Why is that?
They have nothing to gain from legalisms when they can just use reservoirs of capital and people to steamroll over anyone else. They don’t need the courts. If you piss Microsoft off due to the way you’re handling a market they’re interested in (for instance, by being in it
), they’ll just throw enough resources into developing a competitor to your product that you will lose. I don’t think this is particularly bad for consumers because Microsoft usually does do a better job than the competitor that they are replacing and they don’t really raise prices once they’ve won.
…they’ll just throw enough resources into developing a competitor to your product that you will lose. I don’t think this is particularly bad for consumers because Microsoft usually does do a better job than the competitor that they are replacing and they don’t really raise prices once they’ve won.
Sounds great to me.
Yeah, let’s just allow Microsoft to become the only software firm on the planet. Not “particularly bad” for consumers, right?
Unless the products of the competitors are made on a free, open-source basis like Firefox, then YES, let MS drive them the hell out of business for all I care.
See, the interesting thing with your argument is that most of the companies in this league either have a poor or nonexistent relationship with the idea of FOSS development for its own products. Furthermore, some of them, IMO, seek to control their own monopolies, and simply don’t want Microsoft to muscle in on their home turf. Hence, their talk concerning MS stifling competition is hypocritical and ridiculous at best.
Microsoft making a move to drive them out of their competitive/monopolistic position could potentially force them to either “pull a Netscape” or go out with a sigh and a wimper.
The benefit in the former is that, with a non-profit FOSS development crew working on your code, your business can 1) provide accompanying services better, 2) withstand your most overwhelming competitors easily, 3) appeal more to a niche(s) of users that the biggest product can’t appeal to.
Microsoft has nothing of the such, but it does have a vast army of developers, expertise, and stacks which can rival the biggest open source project. That, combined with the insatiable desire to want it all, props most of Microsoft’s mainstay products up, even without most of the open development and review that open source projects rely upon.
So if companies which can’t compete against MS also can’t go for an FOSS development solution, then why should they get any sympathy from me?
Why should they even be in the market in the first place? They should get out of the gene pool while they still can; they’re mucking things up.
And Adobe should be the first to go…
What does any of this have to do with FOSS?
It’s about open standards.
So, apparently you dislike corporations that are not cool enough to the free/open source software world so much that you desire their imminent death.
What kind of nonsense is that? Seven dogs fighting for a bone, one bigger than the rest, but the rest are actually not much nicer than the big dog, so just let the biggest dog kill the others and have it all?
Sure, corporations shouldn’t get lazy.
But don’t be telling me that Nokia, Red Hat, Sun Microsystems are all equally “evil” or irrelevant when it comes to FOSS. Quite the contrary, Sun GPL’ed a few nice things and a lot of people like that. Nokia is doing the right thing too (GIYF) and Red Hat, well I don’t even have to mention their track record.
Your idea of the economy is pretty communist: let the biggest party crush the others and have them decide what the people want. And let the black market (FOSS, in this analogy) pick up the crumbs.
“What does any of this have to do with FOSS?”
Alot, actually. Have you noticed that the FOSS projects tend to be much more resilient (while being less competitively-bent) than most of these completely-closed-source companies (save for the few that you mentioned)?
Essentially, it all comes down to whether you place more stock in making money or making a good product. If its the former, you’ll sue, sue, sue MS over some bullshit “OMG, ur teh monopoly!” matter. If its the latter, you’ll stop calling your legal corps, open up the source code of your product, and actually invest more into the development of better products.
“So, apparently you dislike corporations that are not cool enough to the free/open source software world so much that you desire their imminent death.”
Nah, I just detest punks who cry “monopoly” to the courts so that they can keep their own.
“What kind of nonsense is that? Seven dogs fighting for a bone, one bigger than the rest, but the rest are actually not much nicer than the big dog, so just let the biggest dog kill the others and have it all?”
It’s called “Pitbull Fighting 101”, my friend.
“Your idea of the economy is pretty communist: let the biggest party crush the others and have them decide what the people want. And let the black market (FOSS, in this analogy) pick up the crumbs.”
Oh, but I thought that FOSS was *the* way to go? 😉
All right, now I have a better idea of where you’re going. A lot of what you say makes good sense.
Yet, I think with all the hypocrisy that comes with giant firms like IBM and Oracle complaining against Yet Another Corporate Giant MS, they try to use something that is essentially a good thing, i.e. legislation that tries to prevent a regulated competitive market into a “Darwinist” jungle.
Not to mention the fact that unlike IBM, MS has never actually helped the nazis murdering people, so if we let ethics get involved in this legal issue too much, we might go places we don’t want to go.
I would barely call “copying others (and late)” as innovation…
I can’t wait to see this innovation. All these people keep talking about it yet I see nothing innovative at all.
Some people here say, that MS should innovate, and be allowed to do so. I agree.
Some other people here say that MS should not try to substitute their “embrace, extend, extinguish” business tactic with a “reenvent, monopoly-force to users, extinguish” business tactic. I agree with them too.
MS, in my opinion, should be allowed to invent, but should be hindered to either “embrace, extend, extinguish” or “reenvent, monopoly-force to users, extinguish”. So as long as MS does behave well, they should be allowed to bring their innovations to the market, but as soon as they try to toe the line, they should pay a hefty fine which makes them not doing it again. Especially regarding file formats, internet protocols and levaraging monopoly power to force other companies out of business, microsoft needs to be watched, and watched closely. Their history does require such a move.
That is entirely incorrect. XAML isn’t even used in any of the .Net 3.0 web technologies, it’s specific to WPF (the successor to WinForms). No web. None. Zero. Zilch.
I believe what’s being referenced here is WPF/E, which to my understanding has a browser plugin and is in essence a competitor/replacement for Macromedia Flash.
So its no surprise that Adobe’s part of this “league of concerned anti-Microsoft competitors”.
First, the spat over PDF in Office, then the current spat between bloggers at both companies over Sparkle (codename for WPF/E) vs. Flash.
What’s funny, though, is that I haven’t heard anything from Mozilla about XAML, probably because XUL is only being used for the creation of standalone applications and extensions, while XAML is being poised and purposed for creating server-based rich internet applications (which means no XAML extensions for IE8).
probably because XUL is only being used for the creation of standalone applications and extensions
Bzzzt, wrong.
http://www.veerwest.com/sandbox/xul-in-html.php#myPanel-tabPanel0
http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/2006/12/xule-what-if/
No idea why they are complaining really, as the actual money making software they make is all for Windows and Mac. Personally I think they are just bitter since MS refused to pay them to include PDF, and didn’t. PDF is not in danger and is already open, meaning if they were smart maybe they would start porting to other OS besides just Windows and Mac for things like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Illustrator, etc. Just a thought.
You’re forgetting that ever since Adobe bought Macromedia, they are one of the primary vendors for web development software.
MS is getting ready to replace FrontPage with something that is less of a sick joke, and the last thing Adobe needs is all kinds of poorly documented non-standard browser add-ons that they will have to support in their web development software in order to maintain their market share.
“MS is getting ready to replace FrontPage with something that is less of a sick joke”
I giggled out loud when I read that as it is oh so true…I was involved in some of the early Expression betas. It amazes me that MS can put out very polished products like Visual Studio, Office, SQL Server, etc, yet totally screw the pooch on something as simple as a WYSIWYG HTML editor.
Expression is lame.
Some companies rivals attempt to sue the said company.
Big whoop.
I want to see Adobe taken to the EU council and I would claim that Adobe is limiting operating choice by not porting their applications to alternative platforms – and you know; that is actually *TRUE* – because they don’t port their software to Linux, my choice in platforms is limited.
Maybe that should be a new tactic; start demanding software to be ported to Linux, and if they don’t – claim they’re limiting operating system choice by deliberately not supporting a given operating system.
Wow. Your suggestion is ultimately ridiculous, sorry.
Next thing you do is sue BMW for not making airplanees and therby limiting your choice in transportation.
That’s a severely-broken analogy.
Maybe if it was making engines for one or two brands of car and not for the others, then yes, BMW would be acting the exact same way as Adobe.
Or more correct, in the case of Adobe – going around bashing Microsoft and claiming about Microsoft limiting choice, and yet, Adobe doing nothing about catering for the needs of their users – namely, providing end users with a ported version of their software.
The analogy I used is probably a little fancy free, but at the same time, it still stands to reason that if we’re going to claim Microsoft limits choice, we should go a step further and claim because Adobe doesn’t offer their products on Linux, Adobe is in collusion with Microsoft to maintain the Windows monopoly; aka collusion.
This European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS), whoever they are (I assume it’s IBM, Sun, Adobe, etc) are deliberately spreading disinformation. We’re seeing this more and more from the anti-MS camp.
Here’s a couple of statements:
“It said Microsoft’s XAML markup language was “positioned to replace HTML,” the industry standard for publishing documents on the Internet. XAML would be dependent on Windows, and discriminatory against systems such as Linux, the group said. “
Once any group asserts that XAML is positioned to replace HTML, they not only immediately flush their credibility down the toilet, they reveal themselves to be liars, pure and simple. XAML does not compete with HTML, and anyone saying that is lying.
Second, XAML isn’t tied to Vista. It’s part of WPF, which has been backported to XP. So, being that it’s independent of Vista, how can it make Vista “illegal”?
And WPF/E is also not tied to Vista. Nor is it tied to IE. The current version (I don’t know if it’s been RTM’ed) works on IE, Firefox, and Safari, and Microsoft has demo’ed WPF/E in all those browsers. So it’s browser and OS agnostic.
Here’s another statement by this EICS:
“It said a so-called “open XML” platform file format, known as OOXML, is designed to run seamlessly only on the Microsoft Office platform. It governs the way a document is formatted and stored.”
More FUD. First, OOXML has NOTHING to do with Vista. This group is deliberately conflating Office with Vista. Second, it doesn’t run “only on Microsoft Office platform”. Apple is implementing it as is Novell. What, Microsoft can’t even implement a new document format in Office now? No judge ever ruled that Office has a monopoly position anyway. The very notion that Office implenting OOXML is illegal is illogical. Microsoft can store it’s files in whatever format it likes.
“The end result will be the continued absence of any real consumer choice, years of waiting for Microsoft to improve—or even debug—its monopoly products and of course high prices,” said Thomas Vinje, lawyer for ECIS, in the statement.
Pure grandstanding.
IBM is still pissed at being outvoted 20-1 at the ECMA OOXML standardization process, so they’re throwing a tantrum.
And Adobe is the company that propose that they and Microsoft collude in price-fixing regarding PDF support in Office 2007 (Adobe said that Microsoft could implement the so-called “open standard” PDF if Microsoft raised the price of Office so as not to undercut Adobe’s own Office-to-PDF conversion tools; in other words, so as not to undercut Adobe’s *monopoly* on Office-to-PDF conversion tools. So Adobe has some nerve talking about “monopolies” and “high prices”, when they propose to collude in price-fixing to protect their own monopoly.
This group portrays themselve as angels, when they are no better than anyone else. In fact they’re worse because they’re hypocrits and they’re crybabies.
And note how these American companies always run to Europe to whine about another American company. The natural place to resolve disputes between companies from the same country is in that country. But they know that they have no real case, so they run to a jurisdiction predisposed to rule against Microsoft on any and all issues regardless of the merits of the case.
Well, I know that the EC despises Microsoft and would jump at any opportunity to fine them, but I can’t see even the EC fining Microsoft for implementing OOXML in Office. There’s simply no rational ground for such a fine. Nor can I see them fining them for XAML.
Unless they levy a fine as another grandstand play for the public to show how tough they are regarding the evil known as Microsoft.
Edited 2007-01-27 01:28
…so they run to a jurisdiction predisposed to rule against Microsoft on any and all issues regardless of the merits of the case.
Care to give examples where the EU has ruled against Microsoft without regard to the “merits” of the case against them ? Looking at the EU and the US it seems to me that Microsoft has the US in its pocket whereas the EU is simply acting in the interests of its population by trying to provide a level playing field.
Pfff… Like it can, with all that money wasted on EU-based competitors to US-based companies like CNN and Google.
Exactly why is it that the EU is trying to level the software playing field, anyway? For its own companies to compete against Microsoft?
Wait a minute, does it even have any EU-based companies involved in this case?
If not, then why is it that these US companies are appealing to the EU to restrict another US-based company’s practices?
I don’t think this involves any “acting in the interests of its population” at any point to me.
And I would like to see MS finally no longer getting away with not giving other companies access to the languages their software speakes:
– SMB network protocol (not given SAMBA the docs for 4 years)
– OOXML is NOT fully documented, nobody but MS will be able to READ all OOXML documents (although everybody will be able to write OOXML documents)
A level playing field makes companies compete against each other with all of the companies adhering to international standards. And that gives us users interoperability and low prices, which is the goal of a market economy.
Microsoft is like a bubble of centralized communism within a capitalistic universe.
//I can’t see even the EC fining Microsoft for implementing OOXML in Office. There’s simply no rational ground for such a fine.//
I’m sorry, but that is not correct.
Microsoft were on the committee that designed the ODF format, but the limited themselves to a strict “observer” role. The attended all the meetings, and said not one word the whle time.
Then, when ODF was approved by Oasis, they said that they saw no customer demand for it, so they wouldn’t implement it.
Then later, when governments the world over started committing to ODF, Microsoft claimed “ODF does not fully support our legacy formats, so we will submit OOXML instead”.
Now it turns out that that was a lie. Microsoft engineers had told Massachusetts that implementing full ODF functionality in Microsoft Office was “trivial”. Now, we have the daVinci plugin for Microsoft Office that can fully support Microsoft Office in ODF format with 100% functionality.
http://www.fr0mat.org/
The daVinci plugin is proof that Microsoft are totally lying when they claim that OOXML is necessary to fully support their legacy documents. That is proven false. ODF is in fact fully capable of supporting all of the functionality of Microsoft Office, and the daVinci plugin proves that fact.
But even if that were not the case, and there was in fact a shortcoming of ODF that did not fully support Microsoft’s legacy documents, then why did Microsoft simply not speak up and mention any shortcoming in the very first place?
Finally, Microsoft engineers knew that ODF was fully capable, and they told Massachusetts representatives exactly that. Microsoft management suppressed this, and came up with the push for OOXML as a standard instead.
The whole basis of OOXML in the first place (according to Microsoft because it could not support Office) is a sham and a lie. OOXML is provably all about trying to stop the introduction of ODF as an open format that all vendors may implement.
That is anti-trust, and the EU can have Microsoft for it.
This plugin does not exist (or has not been released) yet. In fact, I’m inclined to believe the former because in the last post the guys were asking for enough info to implement it.
The plugin doesn’t actually convert the document to useful ODF either: it just wraps untranslatable parts with ODF foreign tags (which is basically just using the escape hatch and no longer following ODF).
Releasing a file format into an international standard would be hard to show as an action in restraint of trade. Especially since Office has never been part of the previous monopoly rulings and it is not even certain that it is a monopoly.
This plugin does not exist (or has not been released) yet. In fact, I’m inclined to believe the former because in the last post the guys were asking for enough info to implement it.
The plugin exists, but for Word only; it is currently being tested by Massachusetts I believe. The Excel and Powerpoint plugins aren’t done yet.
The plugin doesn’t actually convert the document to useful ODF either: it just wraps untranslatable parts with ODF foreign tags (which is basically just using the escape hatch and no longer following ODF).
That’s an oversimplification. Read the actual description of what it does, it’s a bit more than just that.
//This plugin does not exist (or has not been released) yet. In fact, I’m inclined to believe the former because in the last post the guys were asking for enough info to implement it. //
The plugin does indeed exist. It has been demonstrated to several official bodies, whats more.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070123071154671#A_new_an…
“Mr. Edwards has also indicated his willingness to demonstrate the plug-in using test files selected by JTC-1 and suggests that both the Microsoft and the Foundation plug-ins be demonstrated using the same test files, allowing an objective comparison of fidelity. The plug-in has previously been demonstrated for Massachusetts, the State of California, and the European Commission’s IDABC.”
//The plugin doesn’t actually convert the document to useful ODF either: it just wraps untranslatable parts with ODF foreign tags (which is basically just using the escape hatch and no longer following ODF). //
This is partly true, but ODF does a far better job of decomposing old MS legacy format documents into readable cross-platform compatible ODF than MS Office does in providing readable cross-platform information in OOXML.
Mind you, despite the half-truth of your observation here, the point still stands that ODF is able to wholly and perfectly support saving legacy format MS Office documents, as the daVinci plugin well demonstrates.
So when you look at Microsoft’s stated purpose for OOXML:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OOXML
“Microsoft stated that its primary goal was backward compatibility with existing documents and full support of the feature set of Microsoft Office.”
… well it turns out that ODF already achieves that goal. ODF is 100% able to provide “backward compatibility with existing documents and full support of the feature set of Microsoft Office” … except just one. ODF does not support lock-in to Microsoft platforms.
//Releasing a file format into an international standard would be hard to show as an action in restraint of trade. Especially since Office has never been part of the previous monopoly rulings and it is not even certain that it is a monopoly.//
Microsoft stated this purpose for submitting OOXML: “Microsoft stated that its primary goal was backward compatibility with existing documents and full support of the feature set of Microsoft Office.”
Microsoft also stated this as a reason for NOT using ODF, claiming that ODF could not support those goals.
… but it can. ODF has been demonstrated to fully meet those goals.
What is more, Microsoft knew it could. Microsoft engineers reportedly told Massachusetts that it would be trivial to implement ODF for MS Office.
What is worse, Microsoft never at any stage offered any proof that ODF lacked any features needed to support legacy MS Office documents. Microsoft just stated it (as often as they could) as fact, and expected everyone to believe that statement. This is known as the “big lie” technique in propaganda.
Further, Microsoft attended all of the ODF committee meetings, but as an observer only. The whole time, Microsoft said not one word. So if Microsoft truly believed that ODF could not fully support their legacy-format documents, then why did they simply not speak up? Just say: “you will need to add this or that feature”. They didn’t say anything of the sort.
Fortunately, ODF covers it all anyway.
Edited 2007-01-28 10:07
//So when you look at Microsoft’s stated purpose for OOXML:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OOXML
“Microsoft stated that its primary goal was backward compatibility with existing documents and full support of the feature set of Microsoft Office.”
… well it turns out that ODF already achieves that goal. ODF is 100% able to provide “backward compatibility with existing documents and full support of the feature set of Microsoft Office” … except just one. ODF does not support lock-in to Microsoft platforms.
//Releasing a file format into an international standard would be hard to show as an action in restraint of trade. Especially since Office has never been part of the previous monopoly rulings and it is not even certain that it is a monopoly.//
Microsoft stated this purpose for submitting OOXML: “Microsoft stated that its primary goal was backward compatibility with existing documents and full support of the feature set of Microsoft Office.”
Microsoft also stated this as a reason for NOT using ODF, claiming that ODF could not support those goals.
… but it can. ODF has been demonstrated to fully meet those goals.
What is more, Microsoft knew it could. Microsoft engineers reportedly told Massachusetts that it would be trivial to implement ODF for MS Office.
What is worse, Microsoft never at any stage offered any proof that ODF lacked any features needed to support legacy MS Office documents. Microsoft just stated it (as often as they could) as fact, and expected everyone to believe that statement. This is known as the “big lie” technique in propaganda.
Further, Microsoft attended all of the ODF committee meetings, but as an observer only. The whole time, Microsoft said not one word. So if Microsoft truly believed that ODF could not fully support their legacy-format documents, then why did they simply not speak up? Just say: “you will need to add this or that feature”. They didn’t say anything of the sort. //
Some backup to this:
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/79593/index.html
“ODF can handle everything and anything Microsoft Office can throw at it. Including the legacy billions of binary documents, years of MSOffice bound business processes, and even tricky low level reaching add-ons represented by assistive technologies.
Microsoft refused to participate in the OASIS ODF development process, even though they have been an official member of the OASIS group since it’s inception. As an “observer” MS has had full access to all discussions, meeting minutes, proposals, documents and white papers. It was their decision not to participate.
Now they claim that ODF is unable to handle the advanced feature set of MSOffice and the full conversion fidelity of those billions of binary documents to XML. This claim stands as the justification for their not participating in the ODF development process. And, more importantly, as the justification for ISO/IEC to adopt a second XML file format that does exactly what ISO 26300 (ODF) is designed to do.
That’s extortion. Microsoft alone knows the secrets of the billions of binary documents and how to convert them to XML. They won’t share that secret, forcing everyone else into cumbersome, workflow disruptive (lossy) and expensive reverse engineering. And then, after refusing to participate in the ODF process, they use that as an excuse to demand ISO/IEC consider as an international standard an XML encoding of their own proprietary binary file format.
Extortion with a complimentary kick in the teeth.”
For those interested, here it is, ACME 376, a demo of the daVinci plugin and rival to ECMA 376.
http://opendocument.foundation.googlepages.com/home
Download and enjoy.
Edited 2007-01-29 04:31
You just became my hero for the day…well said.
manage presentation for the UI. They manage document structure. If that is difficult to grasp maybe this is how come so many web sites are a nightmare to traverse.
Stylesheets are for formatting.
Edited 2007-01-27 01:35
Crikey, as much as I detest some of Microsoft’s tactics, I equally detest this tendency to scream anti-trust with everything they do.
I personally feel that Microsoft’s dominance has led to a degree of stagnation in certain areas of IT, but I’d rather live with that than have governments start regulating how software companies can produce software.
The core problem is basically market ambivalence and lethargy, that’s not going to change. If we want to break the strangle hold MS has on the market we should be focusing on emphasizing open standards because that’s the lynch point of Microsoft’s dominance and it’s something that both the governments and public-at-large can actually have an influence in.
If the governments really want to break Microsoft’s stranglehold, quit complaining about anti-competitive behavior and start enforcing competitive behavior. Mandate open document formats for governmental use and outside parties, such as suppliers and contractors, that want to interact with the government. Enforce HTML standards for their websites. Enforce java or any other open platform for their internal applications and services, avoid proprietary frameworks. Start penalizing hardware vendors on the “approved purchase” schedules if they refuse to either open their interfaces or commit to support for alternative platforms.
See, in virtually every country, government agencies represent significant purchasing entities. They can exercise this influence to make things better. It won’t be easy, it will likely entail significant short-term costs, but they need to find the will to make it happen if they truly expect anything to change. Note, this doesn’t mean boycotting Microsoft, it just means forcing Microsoft (and tight MS suppliers) to compete on merit rather than taking publicly funded customers for granted. They have a much better chance of enforcing change this way than pursuing legal action, which ultimately only serves to benefit other proprietary companies that have their own agendas. And the benefit will trickle down to consumers, private and commercial, which is what this should be about.
So having said all that, I get a bit frustrated with the complaints about Microsoft bundling apps or technologies, because the underlying implication is that alternatives are not good enough to stand on their own. The competitors, be they OSS or commercial, just need to be better and then let the market work it out for itself.
If the governments are going to get involved, focus on standards; that’s where they have influence. Leave the legal battles to the software companies to fight amongst themselves and save taxpayers the cost.
Just my 2 pennies…
are the investigators using any microsoft products?
or do they send their documents in openoffice format to the court?
/ *IBM, Nokia, Sun Microsystems, Adobe, Oracle and Red Hat,*/
why is Red Hat and Sun complaining for? they don’t produce anything that works with windows, or maybe they are complaining because they fail to produce an OS that can have the same kind of market share that a MS OS gets. It’s not MS fault that those two companies cannot produce an OS that is not as popular as windows. I hope the EU is smart enough to see this.
This is *nothing* *nothing* at all to do with Microsoft being more popular(sic). This is all economics. Monopolies are bad. Monopolies that impose use a Monopoly in one Market to become a monopoly in another is wrong. If you do not understand those principles you should look them up.
In an imaginary world Microsoft would have to compete fairly. It wouldn’t be allowed to hide API’s from competitors; Lock them out of the OS; Default to their own services; Enable access to there protocols; Support other file formats properly.
So I will say again if Microsoft has to compete, and spent less time bundling inferior applications, locking out competitors; and had a reason to produce a faster; less memory hungry; compatible; secure; cheaper OS.
A monopoly can only be created through government intervention. Under capitalism, everyone has the right to compete, and thus no monopolies are created. Microsoft has an alleged monopoly. Yet there are several other big operating systems retailing all over the world. How could this be? If Microsoft somehow managed to make people buy their inferior products(without the use of force), why is it that Apple can provide an operating system with features similar to Vista years before the release of the latter? How can Apple have several percent of the market IF MICROSOFT IS THE SOLE SUPPLIER?
Microsoft is not a monopoly, and it is not anti-competitive. If they wish to dump their prices to take out Apple, then fine. They’ll make extreme losses, and soon a host of new companies will rise to the challenge.
So let me get this straight: Microsoft are so good at what they do, that pretty much everybody wants to buy their products. Because of this, they’re accused of anti-competitive behaviour. Well, if the competition is so lame, I say screw ’em. May they rot and burn in hell. If you can’t compete with Microsoft on a free market, you should give up instead of trying to get the EU to stop them.
But MS is so big! Yes, they are. Yet they were unable to stop Google, YouTube, Apple, Linux, Mozilla, Sun and others. MS can use their money for R&D and investments, or diminish when their monetary supply goes dry. Shure, they could try buying out every interesting project out there, but how unrealistic wouldn’t such a tactic be?
And to say that the software market has stagnated because of MS is just stupid. Look at OSX, Web 2.0, or all the great apps for Windows we take for granted. Can you really say the software market is the same as say 5 years ago? I sure can’t.
Um, why was this modded down? You may disagree with this, but it is definitely an on-topic opinion.
“Can you really say the software market is the same as say 5 years ago? I sure can’t.”
I’m going for 20 years.
With the exception of P2P/Bittorrent. I can’t think of a major software improvement that hasn’t been driven by Hardware.
DOS–>WIN 3.11—>95–>98–>XP–>Vista
Smaller and smaller changes, and that at an OS level.
eweek:
Microsoft has challenged the Commission’s 2004 decision, which included a record fine of nearly 500 million euros ($649.4 million) and orders to change its business practices. It awaits a decision by the EU’s Court of First Instance.
I wonder, have they been paying that money already? I could do with a little less EU tax here in Holland.
MollyC:
And note how these American companies always run to Europe to whine about another American company. The natural place to resolve disputes between companies from the same country is in that country. But they know that they have no real case, so they run to a jurisdiction predisposed to rule against Microsoft on any and all issues regardless of the merits of the case.
I’ll just leave your EU bias for what it is, but has it occurred to you that neither Nokia nor Opera are American companies, and has it occurred to you that Microsoft is a publicly traded multinational corporation, that has a lot of offices in Europe, and that if it wants to keep doing business in Europe it might just want to obey the laws there?
MS, if you feel this is one big conspiracy against you, feel free to leave the EU for what it is. Our tears will dry pretty quickly.
I did receive a fellowship from the EU years ago.
****************************************
SCARY (not that I am ungrateful, though)
****************************************
As a matter of fact, I am not conscious of having received a formal notification from the EU on having received the fellowship (but I did get the money).
Obviously, all the procedures were strictly confidential and information was scant….
However, I did have to fill in quite a few forms.
It looks each day more like the Soviet Union’s Party: PAPER PAPER PAPER PAPER. If you are powerful, you can feed the monster with enough PAPER to make it happy (which is what MS seems to have been doing for years) and go on “living” (as MS seems to be doing, btw: have they really **paid** any money for the “fines”?).
However, if you are a poor mortal, you are DONE.
Yes, this seems just giving MS more publicity FOR FREE.
There is a legislative power in the EU, but where is the executive when it comes to a US multinational?
I did receive a fellowship from the EU years ago.
(…)
Obviously, all the procedures were strictly confidential and information was scant….
However, I did have to fill in quite a few forms.
Don’t worry, legislation in America itself is actually much worse.
Material gathered by means of spying on US citizens by the CIA – without a warrant or anything of the kind – can now be brought up against them in court as evidence.
That’s Patriot Act. And that’s not even the most dangerous part of it.
The president of the US can now also personally order any foreigner in the US to disappear and be ‘disposed of’ when it is “in the interest of national security”. He doesn’t have to explain to anyone, relatives, lawyers, whoever, why he thought that was “needed.”
Microsoft’s little empire is peanuts compared to all that. Not that it shouldn’t be fought by energetic competition – and good, market regulatory, practice.
BTW, we in the EU will give any Americans political asylum if needed.
That MS can’t do a damn thing without somebody finding a problem with it. XAML can be ported to other platforms, and mono will probably implement it at some point. I don’t think it is closed in any real way, it’s just an XML spec and a runtime, so I don’t see the problem.
This is the same bunch of companies that always bitch when MS does something, Adobe’s problem is that it could compete with Flash, IBM and Oracle is involved because they just like sticking it to MS. Do you see Photoshop on Linux or BSD? No. What about Premiere? No sign of it. I think that until Adobe publishes their apps for linux, they should shut up, look how long it took them to update Flash. Adobe shouldn’t even have any credibilty with us, anymore than MS
.
Edited 2007-01-27 21:26
In the USA, where Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly under the legal definition, there is an anti-trust act called the Sherman Act which prohibits monopoly powers from moving in anyway to create vendor lock-in. Since Microsoft XAML/.NET only run on Windows, wouldn’t this be vendor lock in as defined by the Sherman Act?
Vista may well be against EU rules… Hell DVD region codes are, by international agreement, an illegal restraint on free trade. It doesn’t matter. People and governments can make all the laws they want, they don’t make the rules about these things anymore.
I just got back from ExpressionSession07.com, learned all about XAML and WPF and WPF/E..
Honestly this is yet another frivilous lawsuit because their basis for saying what “XAML” is and what it does isn’t correct and it’s misunderstood. This thread is full of the anti-microsoft rhetoric. The people bringing this suit probably know that non-technical people in the courts really don’t understand this technology and where it fits in.
I don’t like situations of monopolistic practices, but XAML solves a problem for the platform specifically not covered by web standards. There they go again confusing the OS with the browser. WPF/e is cross platform but it’s more like a Flash or a very enhanced SVG like solution and you can’t view it without it being embedded like Flash in a browser.
Really this is all application UI development with cross-platform extensions.. These folks should get a clue making these lawsuits. They are probably doing it in EU because they’d get laughed out of court here.