The European Commission is launching two new anti-competition investigations against US computer giant Microsoft. The first will look at whether Microsoft unfairly ties its Explorer internet browser to its Windows operating system. In the parallel investigation, the Commission will look at the interoperability of Microsoft software with rival products. Note: Remember the OSNews comic? Here is a new comic, which, for now, is attached to the story it relates to. We are working on a separate section for the comic, but until that is done, I will sporadically publish comics this way. I have a whole stack of comics ready for when that section goes live – and you can see the name for the comic too, if you look “closely”. Enjoy the new comic, titled “Hawaii“.
It would be hard to argue that the previous investigation had a negative outcome. Having the CIFS specs opened up to Samba and others is good for everyone. Likely even for MS and their customers.
These new investigations could result in documentation for protocols used by Exchange and other important software being opened up. One would have thought that protocols so critical to so many, including government entities, would have to be open as a matter of law. But since it’s not, we have to go through this exercise.
After their experience last time, MS may decide to just go ahead and publish it anyway. They’ve learned that although they may be above US law, they are not above European law.
Edited 2008-01-14 22:47 UTC
I very much doubt that. Think of the mockery they’re going through with OOXML. That’s their idea of openness and standards compliance.
CIFS was something else. It had already been reverse engineered to a high degree, opening it doesn’t hurt their profits because it’s a part of Windows, not a separate product, and generally widespread use of CIFS as Samba actually benefits them. The same things apply to .NET and Mono. If they were really smart they wouldn’t have waited for the EU to force them to open CIFS; but it just goes to show you have to use force when dealing with Microsoft.
But essential protocols and formats such as Exchange or Office formats are another story altogether. Because those are the things most of their revenue and profits come from. What, open them up, give up their best advantage and face actual competition?
Actually, I think it will come down to math. Will it cost them more to open their secrets or to withdraw their products from the UE? Or buy themselves a favorable decision in the investigation? We’ll see.
Edited 2008-01-14 23:24 UTC
Or buy themselves a favorable decision in the investigation?
Emmm this is the EU we are talking about, not the US.
Oh, they say everybody has their price. And if there’s someone with money, it’s Microsoft.
And another thing I forgot to mention above: Microsoft sells the CIFS specs, doesn’t simply give them away for free. The Samba team payed $14k for the specs.
Which leads us to another idea: Microsoft changing their business model to make money from selling the specs for Exchange and Office docs. But I seriously doubt it will make them as much money as they make now. Plus, the moment someone publishes a FOSS implementation, it’s all out in the open and everybody can reimplement it.
“Or buy themselves a favorable decision in the investigation?
Emmm this is the EU we are talking about, not the US.”
What difference does it make? The EU is just as crooked as the rest of em. I have always found it funny that during an investigation the head of the commission takes Ballmer out for dinner, drinks, and back to her place. Kind of fishy eh?
allegedy, some women find fat baldy men sexy….
Most women find men with money and power sexy.
So how sexy is Steve Ballmer then?
That guy almost has it all, he is powerful and rich, fat and baldy, the only downside to this sex symbol is his dancing sucks.
I think I heard Ron Jeremy’s opening up a studio. He’ll have Steve doing the Lambada in no time.
Edited 2008-01-15 14:29 UTC
Man, I don’t want to think about how sexy he is or is not. I’ll leave that to the gold-diggers.
Edited 2008-01-15 16:24 UTC
I bet that many women find him sexy.
Especially for his wallet.
At least taking BG home could result in conversation, challenging stragegy games, a good round of poker or, if your into that type…
Balmer’s only benifit would seem to be making anyone within earshot feel a whole lot smarter. We’ll, he may also be able to teach you some new dance steps
The difference being that in the US you only need to buy a couple of people from the president’s party, whereas in the EU you’ll need a majority in a 700 person parliament with members from 25 different countries.
You may very well be right. I’m not holding my breath on them caving in too easily.
But there is one thing about the release of the CIFS specs to Samba and other OSS projects that did not get a lot of attention, but which I consider to be quite significant. That deal that they negotiated with Andrew Tridgell was *not* required by the original settlement, which was not particularly friendly to FOSS. Microsoft went beyond what they had to do. And a one time 14,000 euro fee for all OSS projects to have access to the specs, and a maintained list of relevant patents, would be like me selling you a car for a dollar, the dollar itself being largely symbolic in some sort of legal sense. 14,000 is absolutely *nothing* to a company with a $322 billion market cap and more yearly revenue than god. And according to Jeremy Allison, it didn’t break the bank for the Samba project either.
So maybe MS is just starting to come around a little bit. I would not predict miracles at this point. But I do believe in giving credit where it is due. And in factoring that into my expectations for their actions in the future. Of course, I never forget for an instant what their actions have been in the past.
I also like the news.
It’s great that there is finally real (instead of just fines) pressure on MS after a decade of having a monopoly keeping competition out or making it very hard for them to be compatible with MS products.
Now let’s wait for some years until we can see the outcome of this inquiry.
That’s what lawyers are for, arguing the impossible
“These new investigations could result in documentation for protocols used by Exchange and other important software being opened up. One would have thought that protocols so critical to so many, including government entities, would have to be open as a matter of law. But since it’s not, we have to go through this exercise.”
Government: “We’ve decided to use your software product; now as a result we are requiring you to give us your code.”
Michael,
How very disingenuous of you to distort my original statement so. And you knew that very well when you did it. How about:
“””
Government: “We, and many of the people of Europe, depend upon the listed software products; thus we are requiring, in the interest of the people, that the relevant protocol documentation for those products be made available.”
“””
The fact that you find it necessary to distort other people’s statements to make your “point” speaks volumes.
-Steve Bergman
Edited 2008-01-15 20:50 UTC
To quote a great movie “Go get her, Ray.”
Since the US dropped the ball on all the anti-trust lawsuits against Microsoft (I still think they should have split them up. They are different departments that don’t really communicate with each other anyhow).
People from other nations realize that there are other companies in the computer world out there and that it should be fair to these other companies.
Most people tend to think they have a Microsoft computer anyhow. It’s actually quite disturbing.
it says quick someone …. anyone care to tell me the rest? can’t read Thom’s writing ;-p
Quick, someone, call Nee? ie…!
It’s like a secret code. Need ?
Edited 2008-01-15 07:28 UTC
It says on the right:
“Fellow Comissioners, I’m sad to inform you that our monthly trip to Hawaii was cut from the budget”
Then below that:
“Quick, someone call Neelie… !”
Not that you asked, but I find it un-funny.
…and Neelie, presumably, is the EU commissioner in charge of competition (http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/kroes/index_en.html).
I had to Google. Maybe it’s common knowledge on the continent O.o
I dont see how this is really an issue anymore. IE isnt integrated into explorer anymore as of vista (and even in xp now). And as for bundling ie, its common practice now. If you sue microsoft, you have to start suing linux distrobutions, apple, and all sorts of hobby operating systems.
Clearly you have not got a clue.
Including a web browser with the default install is not that same as entwining it deep inside the operating system.
Clearly you have not got a clue.
Including a web browser with the default install is not that same as entwining it deep inside the operating system.
In this case, the reason why most people use IE is because it is included with the OS. So whether or not it is ‘deep inside the operating system’ or just comes as the default web browser, people would still use it anyway, so it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference as far as the competition (Opera in this case) is concerned.
So I guess the EU will look into it. Maybe they’ll force MS to release a version of Windows without Internet Explorer; I’m sure people will be lined up around the block to pick that up, just like they did with media player-less version of Windows that the EU blessed us with.
Edited 2008-01-15 01:41 UTC
Exactly, This is another classic example of the EU trying another already tried and tired idea, that nobody is going to buy, opera may be happy, until they realize this new version of windows that nobody bought didnt help them at all in the long run.
I wish EU would spend thier billions on something worthwhile. Anti competition is terrible, but fighting for someone with no good fight in em is like saying “Hey steven hawking wants to do the high jump, lets cripple everybody else down to his level and make it fair”.
Removing stuff from Windows doesn’t cure the essential problem. Microsoft get into trouble because of their avoidance of competition in the software market … because of their lock-in.
A successful remedy would have to remove lock-in, not remove products from the market. Removing products from the market doesn’t help consumers.
So, to remove the lock-in, successful remedies would do some (or all) of the following:
(1) In the case of IE7, require Microsoft to correctly implement open web standards, such as SVG and CSS,
(2) In the case of IE7, require Microsoft to offer to consumers IE7 for Mac and IE7 for Linux at the same price as the version for Windows,
(3) In the case of WMP, require Microsoft to offer to consumers WMP for Mac and WMP for Linux at the same price as the version for Windows,
(4) In the case of WMP, require Microsoft to correctly implement open standards, such as Ogg Vorbis, Theora and Dirac
(5) In the case of OOXML, require Microsoft to offer to consumers Office 2007 for Mac and Office 2007 for Linux at the same price as the version for Windows, and/or
(6) In the case of OOXML, require Microsoft to correctly and fully implement open standards, such as OpenDocument ISO 23600.
Those types of “break the lock-in” remedies would IMO be entirely appropriate and effective to counter the anti-trust transgressions that Microsoft is getting into trouble for here.
Edited 2008-01-15 04:09 UTC
They don’t even have to port or release any of their apps. As long as they release the specs in a useable fashion, and then made sure all their apps followed the released spec then that should be all that’s required.
Those suggestions would not break the lock-in. In fact most would extend the lock-in as people would have less incentive to deal with other programs become more dependent on MS. You don’t help a junkie by getting everyone else addicted to the drug.
Case in point #2) port IE to other platforms. This would encourage webdevs to only test for IE effectively taking us back to 2000 where the web was coded for IE6.
The one way to stop the cycle is to have MS make their protocols, and all subsequent changes, available to other parties.
Clearly YOU dont have a clue
IE ISNT deeply entwined in the operating system anymore. No more than konqueror is deeply entwined into kde, or safari is deeply entwined into osx.
Edited 2008-01-15 03:41 UTC
Ok, lets see you uninstall IE.
Ok.
1. Go to the Control Panel.
2. Click Add/Remove Programs.
3. Click Windows components on the left hand side.
4. Uncheck Internet Explorer.
5. Click Next, Ok, etc.
Of course the actually rendering engine is still available for use by any application including third party applications that require that widget. But the application is gone.
Nope, the application is still there, the links to it however are removed, but the underlying application is still lurking there.
There are a lot of Microsoft and third party apps that expect IE to be installed, and they require more than just the rendering engine.
Sounds feasible – does this affect your ability to download updates etc from the MS website?
No it isn’t; that’s the point. Things such as MSDN File Transfer, and WIndows Update, and Microsoft Update use the IE engine to start their process, so IE is never really “uninstalled”; the executable Icon is deleted, but the program is still resident in Windows.
The point is that the browser needs to be a separated piece of software, on the same playing field as Opera and Firefox, and not integrated into Windows, or provide the necessary links in Windows to Opera and Firefox to allow the same use as IE.
No it isn’t; that’s the point. Things such as MSDN File Transfer, and WIndows Update, and Microsoft Update use the IE engine to start their process, so IE is never really “uninstalled”; the executable Icon is deleted, but the program is still resident in Windows.
The point is that the browser needs to be a separated piece of software, on the same playing field as Opera and Firefox, and not integrated into Windows, or provide the necessary links in Windows to Opera and Firefox to allow the same use as IE.
No, it does not have to be completely removed, why should it be? Many parts of Windows or third party apps expect that there is piece of Windows that can render HTML, etc. It is like asking that font rendering engine is removed from the file system.
My point was not to remove IE completely; my point was to make it a separate component, that if the user or OEM so chooses, they can remove it from the system, and install the browser of their choice.
At present, they can’t do that. Microsoft should open the API’s to allow for Opera and Firefox to connect in the same way that IE would to get the same benefits that IE does (memory allocation, direct ties to library files, etc.)
IE has this advantage; it’s why rendering for Opera and Firefox has been hard to rival because IE benefits from the “tying” into the Windows OS.
You can remove IE. You can’t easily remove Trident without breaking other stuff (Help engine, for example. You can’t tell me it doesn’t make sense to reuse components. That’s ridiculous).
I could care less about the marketing guerilla called Microsoft or legal suits against it. Nor do I care if Internet Exploder is tied to its system.
It clearly reads like someone in the EU wants to make money or gain a little reputation for taking on Bill and his team of billionaires.
People and politicians in the EU are no different than their American cousins. Greedy, crooked and full of it.
It would be nice to be wrong but I bet this case will be nothing more than a Microsoft paycheck, er fine, to the EU.
Odd, my Mandriva runs just fine without Konqueror or KDE if I so choose. How’s your Windows run without IE?
“And as for bundling ie, its common practice now. If you sue microsoft, you have to start suing linux distrobutions, apple, and all sorts of hobby operating systems.”
No; Linux, Mac OS X, the BSDs, and all those “hobby operating systems” you mention are not a monopoly. They make a minuscule percentage of desktops in the world. Therefore, they are not subjected to the same restrictions that Microsoft is.
Microsoft is a monopoly in the operating system market. Therefore, they have an extra set of rules to follow. A company cannot legally use their monopoly in one market (ie. operating systems) to gain an unfair advantage in another (ie. web browsers).
And after Netscape’s demise, IE’s monopoly (illegally gained thanks to Windows’ market share), and Microsoft’s stagnation of IE (and therefore, the Web) due to no competitive alternative browsers… it’s obvious why monopolies are bad and why they have special rules to follow. They annihilate competition, and destroy innovation.
Edited 2008-01-15 04:02 UTC
I think that some OS News posts should include this is a standard disclaimer at the bottom so that it doesn’t have to be explained again in the comments.
You can get Windows versions for most of the FOSS applications that are bundled with Linux in typical distributions.
Firefox, OpenOffice, GIMP, Thunderbird, Inkscape, Abiword, Gnumeric, VLC etc etc are all available for Windows.
The “bundling” that happens with Linux distributions does nothing to lock you in to Linux, or even to that particular distribution.
Likewise, if Microsoft offered versions of Office 2007, WMP, IE7, Exchange and Sharepoint for Linux and Mac platforms at the same price as Windows versions, there would be no problem for Microsoft.
Free competition, no lock-in? … no problem.
Lock-in to Microsoft products? … huge anti-trust problem for the monopolist company.
Edited 2008-01-15 04:18 UTC
On what planet can you not choose to install and use either opera, safari, firefox, mozilla, and several others on windows. The way you talk if I dared use firefox, microsoft would show up at my door with machine guns.
Im not saying that have a right to abuse a monopoly. Im just saying that internet explorer is not integrated into explorer anymore, and they have just as much a right to package ie with windows as any other os has a right to package their browser of choice with theirs. While we’re at it, lets sue ms for packaging notepad. After all, this is depriving some poor soul from overcharging you for the same thing.
Lets also not forget, that if microsoft never shiped ie with windows, we all would probably be paying $60 for a new copy of netscape every year.
I am by no means an MS advocate, but its getting kind of cliche that people beat on microsoft for no other reason than that they have a bigger market share. If there were no microsoft everyone would hate apple, if there were no apple, who knows, maybe we would all be using Be, then everyone would hate Be Inc because they were so big and a monopoly. Its all a giant “look at me” attention game for a bunch of wanna be script kiddies.
Edited 2008-01-15 04:32 UTC
You got it all bass ackwards. You need to understand why bundling is not acceptable … it is not acceptable from a monopolist in order to further the monopoly lock-in.
It is simply not a question of being able “to install and use either opera, safari, firefox, mozilla, and several others on windows”. That is not abuse, that is enablement.
The problem is that you cannot install IE7 on Linux or Mac, coupled with the fact that IE7 is not compliant to standards, and inclues “proprietary extensions” such as activex. That is where the lock-in comes, and that is what must be addressed. Either remove the lock-in proprietary windows-only features of IE7, or make all features of IE7 not Windows-only by offeing it for Linux and Mac.
So, its because ms had the audacity to alow ie plugins to be written. Ok, lets sue pidgin then, and xmms. Because they allow you to write plugins for their products, they are locking you in to those products. Therefore they are anti-competitive.
Lets sue firefox too.. Because it also allows plugins that work for only firefox. They are locking you in when you CHOOSE to write a plugin for them. Thats anti competitive.
Where exactly is the line drawn? Ahh.. where it benefits you.
Edited 2008-01-15 15:23 UTC
urm… last I checked there were Windows ports of all those applications..
Stop smoking the crack pipe
You got it all bass ackwards. You need to understand why bundling is not acceptable … it is not acceptable from a monopolist in order to further the monopoly lock-in.
Those kinds of blanket statements are nonsensical and ridiculous. Bundling is quite often in the consumer’s best interest, and it’s not clear how far down the stack you need to travel before you’re not considered “bundling”. I mean, seriously, is including Notepad or Solitaire “bundling”? Sure, it is. Does it affect competition? Who knows. That’s an entirely subjective consideration. How about including a UI Shell like Windows Explorer (or KDE or GNOME), instead of a command-line? Is that destroying the market for “UI Shells”? Again, who knows. It’s all subjective.
Regarding IE, I would argue that a basic web browser is a fundamental part of any operating system — and no operating system ships without one today. Question: How do you propose that the average person download an alternate browser without an existing browser? The whole issue is nutty. I wouldn’t mind if Microsoft had a version that excluded IE from the installed files but, frankly, like the Media Player debacle not long ago, the reality is that nobody would want it. So, why are we even talking about this, unless it were about an antitrust official trying to make a name for herself and set herself up for a nicy cushy job after she leaves the EC post?
+
As your statement bundling is quite often in the consumer’s best interest.
It’s all subjective. To be precise, only each consumer knows, and every consumer have their own position on such topic.
wget. Debian apt-get. Update Manager. Or whatever an operating system these days call his online packages download feature.
Thanks god, you don’t need a full bloated web browser to save an URL response into a file! As you don’t need a pre-installed packages installation framework.
At least there is no reason any operating system should needs those. If they’re, that’s a design issue. Or purpose, in some case (aka lock-in design). Like with Microsoft Windows Update who required Internet Explorer, couldn’t show you what packages are available without opening a full web page and refused to use your default web browser. All designed by Microsoft.
Badly or on purpose, your call.
Long live to Zero Install or similar systems!
I agree with your comments; however, let’s be honest here: How many users would (a) actually know about the existence of other web browsers, (b) would care, (c) would install an alternate browser? I would argue that the percentage would closely mirror the current install base of FireFox; after all, nothing is stopping the current Windows user population from downloading and installing FireFox. But since the ones who know about and want FireFox have already installed it, how has the preinstallation of IE on their boxes hindered them? Answer: It hasn’t. So, really, what is to be gained here, other than architectural sugar?
As I’ve said previously, I believe that, if the EC orders MS to produce a version of Windows that doesn’t contain IE and offer it to consumers, nobody will buy it — just like what happened when the EC ordered MS to decouple Media Player from Windows. In my opinion, the EC is really barking up the wrong tree here … and, seriously, it’s so 1999 to even care about web browsers…
There’s a crucial difference; with Linux disributions the web browser is made by a 3rd party.
I got a tip for you, look up “unfair competition” in a law book or ask someone who knows.
It seems that the issue at bar in the IE investigation should be: Is Microsoft in any way preventing or discouraging OEMs from replacing IE with an alternative browser in their default system images? If the OEMs are choosing independently of Microsoft and/or each other to include only IE, then I don’t think that there is a case against Microsoft.
The only alternative is to argue that Microsoft should be prohibited from including a browser with their operating system. But the OEMs won’t ship a system image with no browser. If they are free to add whichever one they want, and they select IE, then we’re back where we started.
It’s sort of like an aftermarket muffler company complaining that the automakers are being anticompetitive by shipping their cars with stock mufflers already installed. Mozilla, Opera, and other browser distributors need to understand that their products are aftermarket items. They need to effectively make the case for why users and OEMs should ditch the stock IE for their superior browsers. If they aren’t making that case, then they aren’t really competing, and Microsoft isn’t really being anticompetitive.
Thanks for an even-handed response. I know you are no particular fan of Microsoft, but you’re making a fair statement, unlike some other vocal members of the OSS faction.
I really hope nothing serious comes of this. It seems pretty pointless in light of the fact that the ie8 team is already publically taking steps to improve IE’s implementation of web standards.
That’s all very nice. But what I see every day is my customers having to use IE, even though they don’t want to, in order to be able to conduct their business. We have *never*, that I know of, hit a Firefox only or Safari only site. The IE8 team can publicly “take steps” all it wants, but it doesn’t make a whit of difference as long as the reality is that my customers *have* to be able to run IE. Be it through Crossoever Office or whatever.
If the IE8 team is already leveling the playing field then I’m sure that will come out in the investigation and we can all look at the results and say “Hey, that’s really great!”, and Microsoft has nothing to worry about. But let’s have the investigation, just to be sure.
Investigations cost money and time for Microsoft. The EU is a governmental organization, so their actions are paid for by the taxpayers in their country and are controlled indirectly by these taxpayers, but Microsoft’s operations are funded by the customers and any profits or value derived therefrom belong to the shareholders of the company. Who is going to compensate the customers or the shareholders for the costs of the investigation?
Furthermore, these constant complaints and inquiries and investigations have a chilling effect on Microsoft’s abilities to improve its products and make new ones. I wish Brussels would send a message to some of these members of the European Committee on Interoperable Systems (basically an IBM-Oracle-RHAT, and now apparently Opera, lobbying organization) that there’s a limit to how much the Competition Commission is willing to get involved in the affairs of one corporation. And if they do investigate, it should be done quietly and confidentially until it is decided that some action needs to be taken or a case needs to go to court. The nominal job of the EC is to regulate the market to ensure competition, not to generate press releases or fame for its commissioners.
I’m all for sufficient government oversight, but it should be conducted in a way that is not overly onerous for either the party being investigated or the investigative body.
Your argument that it is money wasted is only valid if there is no doubt that they are not in violation of antitrust law. Now, you might think that they are not. But it’s pretty clear that there is no consensus that they are not. In fact, there’s a lot of reason to think that they are, in fact, in violation. And if they are, the benefits to the people *far* outweigh any overhead cost of the investigations. MS does billions of euros worth of business in Europe. With so much money, and potential harm to competitors, involved, how could anyone quibble over the overhead costs of investigating whether they are in compliance with the law?
As to it exerting a “chilling” effect on MS’s ability to Innovate^Wimprove their products… sorry, but you’ve been drinking the Microsoft PR Kool Aid. If they are in violation of antitrust law, being forced to comply might cramp their style. If they are not, then an investigation should not affect them at all.
Nobody. Because these costs comes from Microsoft monopolistic abusive behavior.
Abusing their monopolistic position allow Microsoft’s shareholders (but not their customers, ironically) to earn more market-share and so more money than if they had play by the rules.
Shareholders should have known better. They couldn’t escape rules forever. Play by the rules have costs indeed, they try to ignore them, but instead they just offset them.
It seems pretty pointless in light of the fact that the ie8 team is already publically taking steps to improve IE’s implementation of web standards.
Maybe. But a little pressure to keep MS “honest” doesn’t harm.
The problem isn’t IE the application, not anymore. Netscape is dead, so bundling or not is irrelevant. All browsers are free of cost.
The problem here are all the undocumented ways IE renders HTML and all the extension technologies like ActiveX. These lock out other browsers. An IE only site blocks other browsers from accessing it. You could rightfully claim that this problem is caused by the web designers. They choose to use these technologies.
The flipside of this is that MS keeps this situation going, as long as IE uses ways to deal with webcontent contrary to common industry standards like W3C/IETF. Through the sheer ubiquity of IE, MS is able to lock out competition by making (having made?) IE handle webcontent in peculiar ways.
If IE8 handles webcontent like all other browsers and MS stops pushing proprietary (content handling) extensions, which are only interoperable with IE, I have no problems with a bundled IE in Windows XP/Vista/”7″.
That’s the problem isn’t it? How do you stop web developers using MS only protocols like ActiveX and writing pages that only render correctly in IE when they know 90% of the world has no problem accessing these sites? Most of the problems are business people having to access private intranets which rely on IE and ActiveX.
For example, here is Australia, if you want to use Ipec as a carrier, you need to access their website to arrange a pick up, their website mandates IE, so if you want to use an alternative operating system, you’re screwed. Same with our biggest Telco Teltra(Better known as Helstra) You can sort of use their site with Firefox, but with much less functionality and most of their pages render like shit.
Now one could say as I did, well screw you, we’ll use a different carrier, but most wouldn’t give a hoot because IE is there on their desktops ready to go thus propagating the problem.
Removing IE from windows at this point in the game would achieve nothing IMHO. People will still need to install it to get on with their work and OEM’s would still choose it over another for the same reason.
I don’t know the answer, but somehow someone needs to come up with a way of preventing developers from sustaining this fiasco and stop it from happening again in the future.
A world where you could only drive cars from GM because they were the only ones that knew the spec to petrol would be a boring place indeed
I agree that it’s a raw deal with respect to your ISP. I don’t buy your complaint for intranets because these might be meant for a more homogenous client install base (well, homogeneity is a choice that organizations should make carefully… there are both cost savings and risks). If you have the ActiveX technologies in IE, or a consistent AJAX implementation (which IE had first), you can more easily make corporate intranet sites that do a little more than just a dumb webpage. It’s a way of getting a client-like experience with sometimes easier deployment characteristics.
The IE8 team claims publicly that they are well on their way to fixing the misinterpretations of the standards and missing features that make it easier for your ISP to write an IE-only site. I’m pretty confident that they will deliver, since they are explicitly talking about it and have shown off working code on Channel9. As your bank updates its site in the future, it can set its doctype and perhaps include some comment to indicate to IE that it’s not relying on previously incorrect IE behavior, and you’ll get the thing which you desire.
I like the car analogy. It seems the MS muffler is wielded in place with a joining joint half way down the pipe for aftermarket mufflers to be attached. Instead of replacing the muffler, your options are to have one muffler (the MS muffler) or two mufflers (the MS muffler and the after market fork).
——-MSMSM-
or
——-MSMSM-
\–OTHER-
(if the cheesey asci stays lined up properly)
Windows includes *only* Internet Explorer and I’ve yet to see an install of Vista with it not included.
Linux base OS and BSD distributions make *all* (or 90% of) competing browsers available for inclusion.
When Microsoft Updates -> Optional or install DVDs include IE, Firefox, Opera, Lynx, Links.. and the the rest of the html browsers available for win32/64 *then* you’ll have a point.
Why oh why do people always draw this erroneous conclusion?
The problem isn’t that Microsoft bundles, but that they are a monopoly that bundles. When Linux or OS X (or something else) enjoys the same market share that Microsoft currently does, they will be the target of these kinds of things IF they use their monopoly to destroy the competition the way Microsoft does.
Understand?
I hope the specs do get opened to allow working implementations. These are a must have.
<off topic>
When do the investigations begin for the companies that refuse to write software for platforms other than Windows or Mac? That is the real problem, lazy software houses. If good software was available for other OS, as well as the games available for other OS, well, people could and *would* switch to things like Linux or BSD. MS is no longer the major problem, the lack of developers for other platforms is.
</off topic>
There are any number of FOSS applications available for Windows. Firefox, Thunderbird & OpenOffice are just a few examples. Java applications are cross-platfrom by design. If you design an application from the outset with cross-platform portability in mind, it is not difficult to do.
If however you design an application for Windows, with no thought of cross-platform portability, then the tools Microsoft provide you are BY DESIGN such that porting to another platform is a nightmare.
There are virtually no “made for Windows” applications ported to other platforms other than those whose original design had cross-platform portability as a goal.
Even if, for example, you have designed your Windows application using the current recommended development environment, .NET, and you are now looking at porting to another platform using Mono … forget about it if your original .NET source code uses (as just one example) Windows forms.
Microsoft stuff is DESIGNED TO BE strictly Microsoft-only. Lock-in by design.
This is precisely why Microsoft are getting into anti-trust trouble for it.
Oh right, because it’s so easy to port a Cocoa app using Objective-C to other platforms is it?
Grow up. Microsoft have an API framework which simply isn’t supported on other platforms (except ReactOS). Microsoft create a product which is used by 95% of the world, and yet the other 5% are whinging about it because people refuse to use their products when native applications integrate better and provide a better experience for end users.
As far as I’m concerned, Opera, Mozilla, OO.o et al can either grow up and make some decent native software, and stop whinging about interoperability, or just f–k off and cater to the 5% that nobody cares about.
Last I checked, MS is not the majority market share holder in servers. You might want to rethink that 5% of the market that no one cares about. I suspect all those companies using *nix based servers would like to see MS recognize standards so they can peroperly interoperate with the Windows workstations throughout the offices.
Also, would respecting standards not be in the best interest of 100% of end users including that 5% that you personally don’t care about?
Well said
Wait, what?
Do you want to FORCE companies to write software for platforms they have no interest in? That’s so stupid it hurts.
It’s entirely up to each company or individual what OS they want to support and it should remain that way.
“Wait, what?
Do you want to FORCE companies to write software for platforms they have no interest in? That’s so stupid it hurts.
It’s entirely up to each company or individual what OS they want to support and it should remain that way.”
I agree, you obviously missed the sarcastic sound of that post.
The sarcastic kicks in when one realizes that there is software keeping people on Windows, and not just Microsoft. The whole point was write the software and people will come. Quicken can easily be replaced by Money Dance, so where is Photoshop and the like? That is my point. The Gimp is not a Photoshop replacement at all, so it is those types of apps I am talking about. Until those types of apps are written and are actually good quality, people will stay with windows or mac no matter what anyone else claims or says.
Aha, you got me there.
In me defense though, with all the equally insane opinions flying around here it’s an understandable mistake.
Edited 2008-01-15 09:19 UTC
Companies like Adobe will follow the money provided they give up the “FOSS users won’t pay for software” BS mindset and start providing competitive software with compelling reasons that justify 700$ for Photoshop.
In the end, they will follow the money though. If they money moves to Linux based OS or BSDs then Adobe and others will take notice. (Kick them square in the wallet)
Really, I’d rather see more of the quickly maturing alternatives continue to develop since they will be able to do so while retaining the end users best interests (profit is not the motivator).
The Old Boys Club software houses can either fade away or drop the Lords and Surfs business model and adapt to a true and healthy capitalist market rather than the broken one we have now.
One can see one way in which this ends prematurely. Both Gates and der Ballmer go in 2008. Ballmer’s successor, who’s a little silkier, then cuts a deal. Ballmer’s all-American confrontational style and love of FUD seems a red rag to regulators almost everywhere.
If Microsoft made more effort over standards, they could probably have avoided a lot of this. In the UK, Becta, the official agency which advises on IT for schools, just published a report stingingly critical of Microsoft and in particular with Microsoft playing around with stuff like OOXML. I wonder if those in their executive suites in Redmond quite appreciate how pissed off people get down on the ground with Microsoft and standards which they don’t tell the truth about and so clearly don’t respect.
Microsoft is not a computer maker that I am aware of. It’s also not a giant.
So computer giant is a blatantly false.
Microsoft could be described as a wealthy marketing guerrilla.
Not gorilla, but guerilla.
I’m sure most people will agree or argue that Microsoft knows how to sell its specific brand of wares to the point of near global market lock.
Correct me if I am wrong, but a guerrilla is a person, group or organization which takes part in irregular fighting methods for a specific cause to the point of being brutal.
I believe the EU would better to spend its time making incentives to people who craft open-source code than try to litigate against Bill and his team of billionaires.
Can you imagine where Haiku could be if the EU supported the developers.
Edited 2008-01-15 02:57 UTC
Does the EU have a double jeopardy law, like the US?
Microsoft’s already been declared guilty before of this (by a European court, at least)…
Double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases. This is a civil law matter.
Not in general no. And anyway this isn’t a criminal case so it wouldn’t matter anyway.
Beware the software salesman selling you bullshit on the end of a stick and calling it one amazing Vista!
Why doesn’t the EU just try to break up microsoft and steal all of their money. They might as well try it, they have tried everything else.
I can’t stand the RIAA and I can’t stand the EU.
They are all the same. They want to have something that benefits them and so they act like a monopoly themselves.
The EU wants to screw American companies.
I am not against freedom, I am against dictatorship and they are forcing American companies to be submissive to their will so that EU companies can have a chance to compete.
There is no lying about that.
No wonder I can’t stand Europe. Nothing good comes from Europe and nothing has changed.
Nothing good comes from Europe and nothing has changed.
Your ancestors probably did…
Doesn’t that confirm his opinion? Well, except the “nothing changed” part since obviously things got better after his ancestors moved.
EU market. EU market’s rules.
American companies are free to ignore EU market.
Microsoft included.
Nobody is forcing Microsoft to sell their products in EU market. But if they want to do it, Microsoft have no other choice than follow EU market rules.
Period.
Hardware that does not come with spec. Nvidia for example can control who to support if it does not give specs. It is anticompetitive. The same applies to mpeg cards, web cams, printers and so on. Linux is the greatest interoperability test.
I am not a fan of Microsoft, but this does get a little old. Look at all these other anti-competitive measures:
1. Notepad – think of all the great text editors out there that are getting slighted by this default text editor.
2. Wordpad – word processors all over the world are crying because of this.
3. Solitaire/Hearts – how dare they slight all the great card games around the world. How can the others compete??
4. Nautilus – think of how integrated this is into the default Ubuntu desktop!! Everywhere you click, Nautilus is there to greet you. How dare they not include a list of default file managers at install time.
Microsoft’s main crime has been the leverage they obtained with the OEM’s a long time ago. Instead of endless lawsuits, let’s just all order some of them Dell Linux PC’s. That would shut ’em up quick!
[EDIT – spelling]
Edited 2008-01-15 14:56 UTC
Lets continue this discussion..
Redhat, Suse Ubuntu etc ARE DISTIBUTIONS…Thats why they have freedom to bundle any software they want…
Microsoft is selling whole integrated OPERATING SYSTEM and is private business. This bundling and unbundling talk should not apply to them. (redhat will not unbundle annaonda or ubuntu will not unbundle launchpad). MS sell us OS at a fixed price and it comes with stated software. If you dont like price and programs inside windows, don’t buy it. Simple.
Can you ask your GM or FORD car to have easily removable stereo player, so that you can put you can replace with your favorite bang machine BEFORE PURCHASING CAR? NO? All this replacements should be done AFTER purchasing a car…
Edited 2008-01-15 17:21 UTC
Independent study advises IT planners to go OOXML
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1107
Yould have thought that EU might have learned a lesson from the Media Player debacle. Remember that? The EU wanted Microsoft to produce a version of Windows that didn’t contain Media Player. So, after much hand-wringing and courtroom drama and negotiation, Microsoft agreed to do it. Except, the market basically ignored the version of Windows without Media Player because (a) OEMs weren’t interested, and (b) customers weren’t interested. So, what was gained from that debacle?
Microsoft has already provided a facility for allowing OEMs to establish another default browser. Whether or not IE has “technically” been “removed” from the overall Windows product is really a pointless debate. For all practical purposes, third parties can replace the browser functionality. Is the market really clamoring for more? I don’t think so. Everybody that wants to run FireFox or Opera is already doing so.