Earlier this month, news got out that the European Commission is charging Microsoft with unlawful competition regarding its bundling of the Internet Explorer web bowser with Windows. At the time, information was scarce, but thanks to Microsoft’s quarterly filing at the Securities and Exchange Commission. we now have a little more insight into what the EU might force Microsoft to do.
In the filing, Microsoft states that the EU is thinking about forcing Microsoft and OEMs to offer customers a choice of browser when they’re setting up their computers, which would mean that they have to ship several browsers on machines. Microsoft explains in the filing:
While computer users and OEMs are already free to run any Web browsing software on Windows, the commission is considering ordering Microsoft and OEMs to obligate users to choose a particular browser when setting up a new PC. Such a remedy might include a requirement that OEMs distribute multiple browsers on new Windows-based PCs. We may also be required to disable certain unspecified Internet Explorer software code if a user chooses a competing browser.
Non-compliance could lead to a significant fine based on the number of Windows computer sold, Microsoft said. In addition, the company also stated that the EU is still investigating Microsoft Office, and any possible problems in that area.
While I personally applaud any investigation into possible unlawful competition, I do believe that forcing OEMs to offer customers a choice of browsers is a bit odd, as this would create unfair competition by itself: sure, you can include Firefox, IE, Opera, Safari, and Chrome in this choice – but what about other browsers? Where do you draw the line? How would newcomers enter such a market?
I think the most reasonable thing to demand from Microsoft is that Internet Explorer can be fully removed from Windows, and replaced by another browser. Shipping an operating system without a browser is ridiculous; forcing customers to choose between an arbitrary set of browses even more so.
And what if I DO NOT WANT TO BE ABLE TO CHOOSE? Or what if I do not want to make that decision? And what if I want my browser INCLUDED in my OS?
The EU is getting so utterly BORING and stupid……. Much more than I thought it would.
Pedro.
true…
but at least they’re not Microsofts bitch, unlike the US govt.
Recall, it was the Bush administration who changed the Government’s side on the case and helped MS apeal Jackson’s ruling.
Judge Jackson didn’t help the case by spouting his mouth off to the media – and flippant comments like, “Bill Gates as a nepoleonic complex”. He should have kept quiet and any questions asked to him should have been replied using the following, “I have not heard all the evidence from both sides of the case, I will reserve any comments till all the evidence is presented and I submit my decision on the matter”.
Had he kept his mouth shut – we’d be talking about Microsoft Applications and Microsoft Operating System. Thanks to Judge Jackson spouting his mouth off the Microsoft team had a legitimate argument that the judge had pre-determined the case before all the evidence was provided.
Want someone to blame, blame Judge Jackson for giving Microsoft the tools required to scuttle the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft#Settlement
“On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case.”
“Nine states (California, Connecticut, Iowa, Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, Utah, Virginia and Massachusetts) and the District of Columbia (which had been pursuing the case together with the DOJ) did not agree with the settlement, arguing that it did not go far enough to curb Microsoft’s anti-competitive business practices.”
The US *DOJ* scuttled the case …
The case was never finished , was never ended following the laws of the US of A , the case was never fully tried.
Why put blame on people , when justice and laws itself where ignored …
Buy the commercial version – its only the OEMs that are being forced.
So someone else is better at telling you which software you should use? I would assume you would be the best one to make that choice?
it IS included, you just have to choose which to use.
Its similar to choosing write.exe or notepad.exe – instead of being forced to only use write.exe
of course one could argue that several application could have the same issue, which is why Microsoft has the ‘Set program access and defaults’ option. They just need to run it in the installation.
That said, I think that only a limited number of people would understand the choice given: Please choose your browser: (a) (b) (c). How many products should be listed? How would “normal” people know the difference?
Edited 2009-01-26 12:28 UTC
I guess the setup helper will be responsable for downloading the browser too?
While I am not pro-microsoft, I believe this is arbitrary and unfair. What about Mac or Linux? Admittedly they do not have a monopoly, but they are also trying to “force-sell/include” some software.
What would be nice is, have a barebones Windows Installation and then on first-run, ask the user if he/she wants to have 1. Windows Media Player 2. Internet Explorer 3. Outlook Express 4. OneCare 5. Windows Live Components..etc installed, and if so, they get installed (offline – just pop in cd or something like that). No need to include other programs like Firefox or Chrome or Thunderbird. Microsoft, like any other company should not be forced to distribute/advertise for other software.
It’s like telling Renault to ask their customers which brand of radio they want on purchase or what engine. The whole thing forms part of the windows experience and license. What do they want removed next? notepad? explorer.exe? or maybe have people choose between cygwin and command prompt.
Then perhaps is it time for OEMs to die? Have microsoft given them a “free” version of “windows x basic edition” instead? Besides why should Microsoft be the only OEM OS concerned?
P.S. I am not a Microsoft Fanboy, just that Stupidity cannot be condoned, and justice cannot be arbitrary.
The only problem with MS is that they have a dominant position and they have abused that position. That is why they are beholden to different standards than other vendors. It is what happens to BIG BAD companies. They get slapped on the wrist if they cross the line. If MS weren’t BAD, they wouldn’t be under scrutiny.
What about Mac or Linux?
What about them? Apple is minority player. Linux? According to Windows lovers it is virtually non-existent. So they can bundle whatever they want and still not have to answer to the same rules as MS. It’s not arbitrary. It’s a different set of rules for different circumstances.
When it comes to Linux distributions they give you almost every browser under the sun that they can legally distribute. So where is the anti-competitive lock in? Heck, if MS made a version of IE for Linux and put it under a license that let Distro’s distribute it as a binary, they would include IE. How’s that for a level playing field?
No … They broke many laws and are being prosecuted for them after the long trial their expensivie lawyer afforded them.
No , It’s the same laws for everyone , other just don’t break them or have yet to be prosecuted for them.
It’s what happen to criminal who break the law , making an OS don’t make your company bad or big. They don’t make weapon or sale them illegally to the enemy of your nation for example.
They are not an exception everyone suffer the same scrutiny , they even get chances other’s don’t.
NO , we have to follow the same law and we both do , in different ways but we do.
No , it’s the same set of rules for everyone , other just don’t break them at all.
Not breaking any laws in doing that …
It’s the extreme opposite.
That’s part of the problem , Microsoft also break standards , but refuse to support it’s ompetition or make compatibility layer availaible.
Microsoft is not accused of not supporting other OS , even do it should be , they are accused of blocking competition on Microsoft OS. ( IE is offered for Apple OS , the thing that those who accuse Apple tend to forget is included ).
I don’t believe you …
What is unfair is letting Microsoft break the law , all the time will asking it’s competition to follow it. They should strip Microsoft of all it’s worldwide profit for the years of their commited crime.
Criminal should not be allowed to benefit from breaking the laws.
Unlike Microsoft they have not broken any law , mocked justice system and wasted repeatidly the time of the judges and courts and lied under oath. They don’t spy on other country for one country either.
They are not dicussing the monopoly law , that Microsoft still break today here , but tying law , forcing two different and separate product on consumer at the expanse of others.
No , they do not , many judge worldwide statuated on that.
What would be nice is to have Microsoft barred from default install.
Every governement does , do you think radio communication standards and pollution emission have no cost on car makers ? Beside you can change both easily after sale , they both have thriving radio and engine after market too.
Where as with IE removing it is not easy or even really doable and since they put the price at zero their is no real after market.
Yes , criminal reprehsensive activity , got to give you that one …
It’s their territory , they make the law , follow them or dont do business there , it’s really simple.
OEM are not breaking the law Microsoft is …
Microsoft gave them Vista …
They are the only one found guitly of having broken the law and not respecting the punishment imposed on them …
No , your an ASTROTURFER.
You prefer to support criminal who break all the laws at the expanse of the rest of the market and of end user’s …
It was not , Microsoft was allowed to make it’s case , waist the court time , again in this other law breaking case , go to it’s limit and even beyond again.
right.. because being reasonable means you are an astroturfer.
You know what reasonnable people do , they work inside the system , they don’t break the law because they want to or support criminals who where found guilty after a fair and just trial.
Why don’t you self called reasonnable anonymous cowards go against the EU court and it’s laws ?
Your real hidden point seem to be Microsoft should be allowed to break the laws and that the laws are unfair …
Go change the laws and have the EU system make an exception for Microsoft legally for a changes …
Why can some people not see the differences ?
Microsoft force IE onto every Windows PC. It cannot be removed without breaking the whole system.
Can XP run Windows Update without IE installed on the PC ? NO.
With Linux you are NOT forced to use any piece of software, YOU have the freedom to pick and choose, to remove (TOTALLY, WITHOUT TRACE) of any browser without breaking things.
Don’t like Firefox ? fine, remove it and stick on Epiphany, dont like that ? fine, remove it and stick on Konqueror, none of them will damage the system if you add/remove them. They are not inherently locked so deep into the system.
The main difference is this. On Linux, a browser is a browser. Just another application.
On Windows, IE is a required mandatory system component that Microsoft want you to keep on the system, and make it too hard to remove.
Before the Microsoft shills retort with “IE can be removed”, I am talking about the application, not the icon !
Edited 2009-01-27 10:29 UTC
How do you define “BIG”? Is a company with a revenue of $32B big enough?
And “BAD”?
I’d think that a company locking it’s OS to a specific hardware and having a monopoly on its hardware would be bad – or even locking products it has monopoly on to using only its services…
What I meant above is, they are fields where Apple is far from a minority – the first one coming to mind being the iPod. What did it do? Lock iPod to iTunes, and iTunes to iTunes store and App Store. Aren’t they abusing of their monopoly power in this case?
Specially when they have an absolute control on what can be published in App Store and have been having DRM protected music in iTunes store such that only iPods be able to play these?
So unless the above is not bad, and apple is not a big company, I am tempted to believing that your “rule” of “BIG BAD” companies getting “slapped on the wrist if they cross the line” is only being arbitrarily applied.
I know linux is a minority player and all, but with linux geared to play a major role in netbooks, maybe we should not ignore it. Admittedly “they give you almost every browser under the sun that they can legally distribute”, but do they come by default?
Taking ubuntu, the currently most popular linux distribution (which is delivered for free to your doorstep with a cherry on top), or even eeePC’s and Aspire One’s preinstalled linux offering, what browser / Office suite are installed on default? Mozilla Firefox and OpenOffice.org. Is the user given any choice during setup? No. So if the user is unaware of any other offerings, the same issue may arise.
Well you don’t need to, but just for the fun, let me tell you that I’m posting this from xubuntu, my primary OS.
Actually this would be more interesting, rather than forcing Microsoft to dismember its product or advertise for its competitors, why not force OEMs to let their users choose their OS at buy time and inform them of possible choices? As it is, many people buy windows because they are unaware of alternatives.
I was talking of brand not of standards.
You must be kidding. All major browsers out there have a zero price tag, and all have to compete based on their technical abilities and marketing prowess – both of which having contributed to firefox’s growth.
The parent used OEM to mean OEM licensed OS.
What I mean is, perhaps it is time for MS to stop having its software as a preinstalled OS, and instead give it as a free voucher for a Basic version of their OS. The interesting part is OEMs should not restrict their vouchers to MS, and MS gets to have its “OEM” (it wouldn’t be OEM anymore) OS the same way as the commercial ones.
Omg o_0 that’s so funny. And you what are you? A freedom nazi?
That’s a very valid point. It will be definitely very appreciated if IE could be fully uninstallable, if technically possible – perhaps some libraries could be kept in case required by certain system components, but without the browser program itself being kept. However as far as the issue of Choice of Browsers during setup is concerned, I still believe MS, or anyone else for that matter, should not be forced to advertise for its competitors. Perhaps an option at setup asking whether IE should be installed or not, exactly as said by Thom in the article:
Simple. Move to North Korea… that’ll take care of that one.
1) Don’t make the decision. Let the default be chosen. If there is no default, it is your responsibility to choose. If you don’t want such a responsibility, you really shouldn’t stay alive. Freedom and responsibility is the foundation of western civilization. Besides that, your malfunctioning shouldn’t limit the freedom of the rest of us.
2) With this solution a browser will still be included. You just get to decide which one will be default without the hassle of installing it manually. No big whoop.
True enough. But it’s been like that for decades. At least it is again possible to measure the quality of non-straight cucumbers :p
If you don’t want to choose then, you pick the default option and continue on with your life. Now, do you always complain when given a choice or only when it’s related to your preferred software brand?
EU government has 2 sides – good and bad – and they are the same – government makes much more intervention into markets than in US, by more strict regulations etc. This is usually a case with member states governments too. Bad side of this is that eurocrats from Brussels tend to invent thousands of stupid laws (like infamous rule of cucumber size and curve). On the other hand this prevented us from deep crisis that USA faced – banking systems are working here more traditional, less risky way.
Then tell the OEM, that you want to have your Browser included. Where is the problem?
If you are a complete newbie to computers, let the OEM make the decision for you.
A pro-Firefox OEM will give you Firefox, a pro-Opera OEM will give you Opera, a pro-IE OEM will give you IE.
You will be happy with each of these browsers, so were is the problem there?
I for one welcome any chance to get rid of IE on my machines.
Besides if people go with another browser in setup they will learn that IE is not the internet and may even still look at other browers. It can only do the market a world of good.
Edited 2009-01-26 12:28 UTC
It’s a beginning. Soon we will see that OEM versions may either not be shipped with new PC’s or a dual boot with a GNU/Linux distro will need to be in place
The forced sale of hardware and software is illegal in most European countries, so what is taking our Neelie so long ?
Well, my debian base install doesn’t come with a browser
I choose it as everything else later on. I like it that way. 99% of pc users wouldn’t. For one, most of them don’t know they can choose something else, and if they hear about having to choose they get scared. That is the level most people have when they say they know how to handle a pc. You can’t change that with regulations, unfortunately. I’d say letting them get IE with their purchase and then later telling them about possible replacements is a better way.
I’d say letting them get IE with their purchase and then later telling them about possible replacements is a better way.
Yeah, in an ideal world this would be the way to go. In the world we live in, most people will listen to the recommendations, hear “blah blah blah” and then go looking for that “blue E internet thing” on the desktop.
The only way to force diversity is making everybody choose upfront what browser they want. It will mostly mean that 80% say IE, but the brave 20% that choose differently might make a difference.
[quote]The only way to force diversity is making everybody choose upfront what browser they want.[/quote]
Tell me about it. People are too stupid for their own good.
How can you have equality without force? People don’t just choose the things you know are good, so you have to guide them. If left to the “market,” quality would be terrible and ignorance would be exploited. Thanks to the government, we can have uniformity and expert-informed choices.
The only thing left is to install Ubermensch to ensure our bright common future. The US is getting there.
I think the most reasonable thing is to leave MS the hell alone. What the EU is attempting to do is anticompetitive. What MS is doing is the very definition of competitive. If you don’t like what they do don’t purchase the product. No one forces you to use Windows or IE… yet you want to force MS to offer competitors products? And how would you feel if MS got the government to for you to use one of their products? Or should the local paint dealer be forced to carry all brands of paint? Should Apple be forced to provide alternative browsers? Mail clients? OS’s? Where does it stop? There is no fundamental consistency here. Just property rights infringement and MS’s competitors using the guns of government in an attempt to punish them.
The problem is that 97.8% of PC’s sold come with Microsoft pre installed, that is the scam !
If you could send Microsoft the activation code and got your money back that would help. Ever better would be to choose an OS at the checkout;
XP sp3 $ 125
Vi$ta home $ 225
Vi$ta Business $ 350
Office 2007 $ 625
Antivirus $ 125
These are the actual prices here in Europe !
or
(K)Ubuntu $ 5
openSuSE $ 5
Mandriva $ 5
Red Hat $ 5
openOffice $ 0
Anti virus $ 0
Now that gives the consumer choice and is fair competition !
Fine by me, as long as you add below
‘(K)Ubuntu $ 5
openSuSE $ 5
Mandriva $ 5
Red Hat $ 5
openOffice $ 0
Anti virus $ 0 ‘
* You will not be able to play games you previously used to – try planeshift instead of WoW, it’s better because it’s opensource, you can contribute code to the project. And your documents when opened with OOo won’t look or be 100% compat. with MS Office. Also your chat programme won’t support all the features your current one does, but who needs to be able send stupid sound samples and huge smilies like Yahoo messenger does? The devs didn’t code anything like that because you actually need friends for that… which they don’t have being geeks and all.
Edited 2009-01-26 15:08 UTC
Why would lies need to bee added to please you ?
http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/Guide_Faire_tourne_World_Of_Warcr…
http://forums.wow-europe.com/thread.html?topicId=84809046&sid=2
a. The gaming argument is lame. There are plenty of games for GNU/Linux and most games are not played on a PC anymore as you may have noticed. WOW works fine on GNU/Linux I hear.
b. If there are problems with Microsoft docs that is entirely up to Microsoft, compatibility & open standards it is called !
c. There are so many chat programs for GNU/Linux, that there must be one that comes close to or has the specific functions a particular user wants/needs. Try aMSN or Skype or Pidgin or Kopete etc. for just chat with all your email buddies use Google-chat !
d. But the most important point is that is is ‘free’&’free’, free as in freedom but also free as in ‘gratis’.
Now can Microsoft beat that ?
BINGO!!!
Give the man a banana.
One of the key reasons you need your little disclaimer there about things like games platform support, document compatibility with MS Office, and interoperability with IM networks like MSN chat, is that MS are in a monopoly position and have been abusing their monopoly position to protect their marketshare.
That warning about Office documents should also be shown each time you buy new version of Office – their backward compatibility is worse than OOs in my experience. Well, OOo 2.4-3.0 migration gets close to Microsoft standards here, as it’s pretty painful too.
playonlinux.com
no they aren’t, they are retailprices that are not compareable with oem-prices
xp comes in at around 30$ for oems
office 2007 starts at 67€ as retail
and there is a lot of free software for windows (including antivirus and office)
I am an OEM and XP is $95 here in the UK.
Are you able to get XP for that same price from Microsoft if your were to advertise and ship two products with the exact same hardware, one with XP pre-installed and one with Ubuntu pre-installed, with a $95 difference in the price tag?
Yes, I do. I do not artificially inflate the Linux (Opensuse) price just to make the XP prices look good.
If someone orders an XP machine from us, they are well away of the differences.
i’m talking about oem-editions where ms only sends you the license-sticker, no cd, no manual
or do you realy believe that a asus pays 95$ for windows on a 300$ eee?
Ok then, how many Macs are sold without OSX? When I buy a Mac, can I send in an activation code to get my money back if I wish not to use OSX?
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/salespolicies.html#topic-2…
All of them Mac OS X is not sold … if you return the software bundle un-opened they give you a refund.
And how would you feel if MS got the government to for you to use one of their products?
Hilarious! We already live in a situation in which MS is manipulating governments to get them to keep using MS formats; only reliably readable in specific MS applications. Do we have to mention Massachusetts, ODF and Peter Quinn? Do we have to mention the ISO OOXML farce? Most government documents are .doc, .xls and .ppt. MS will do anything to keep that situation in place, because it forces us all to have a semi-current MS Office at hand.
It took the Dutch government years to get their heads out of their posterior and offer their tax application for Windows, Mac and Linux. Before they woke up, you could choose Windows or file your taxes on paper via snail mail. I don’t have to tell anyone that paper isn’t nearly as convenient as a program that helps you do the calculations. In essence the Dutch government forced the use of Windows for those who wanted to file electronically.
You are mostly correct, although posting what you said in a pro Linux/BSD environment won’t win you many friends.
I’d like to see Microsoft just pull Windows and Office from Europe. Europe would sink quicker than the bloody well Titanic did. Let them use Linux and OpenOffice, boy oh boy are they in for a big surprise on both accounts.
Whilst I’m a fan of governments playing a larger role in the software industry, I don’t think this is the right way to approach it. Software patents need to be removed to encourage *true* competition, not competition bullied by bigger companies that happen to hold a patent because the USPTO gave it to them on the premise of monetary exchange. Software licences need to be really hammered big time, consumers have almost *no* rights. Responsibility for software must be legislatively enforced. And government agencies must offer documents in open formats. Note that I’m not saying that they must ONLY offer open formats like some Linux nuts would suggest, but they that offer a *variety* of formats to the customer/end user.
I hope Europe has a go at Apple, since it bundles Safari with OS X, and doesn’t give you the choice of not installing it. True, with OS X it’s easier to get rid of Safari, but for the average user, it’s probably messier, since you have to pull crap out of /Applications, /System, /library/preferences, ~/library/preferences etc I suspect. Apple is far more of a anti competitive p.o.s company that Microsoft imho.
Dave
Ambit claim without any support.
There are already a significant number of European government and quasi-government departments that run on Linux and OpenOffice.
Example:
http://software.silicon.com/applications/0,39024653,39155382,00.htm
Dave, you sir are a tool
The EU is the worlds biggest market, and if Microsoft did pull Windows and Office out of it, Microsoft would go down the pan in a matter of days.
At the minute Microsoft are on a share buy-back and have already started laying off staff. Things are going downhill for them, and you want them to cut off their biggest cash cow ?
I am just glad you are not in charge of any business I have dealings with.
No, Microsoft would be in for a big surprise.
Remember the guitar-string maker Ernie Ball? He got raided by MS, which upset him so much, that he made the decision to not have anything to do with Microsoft ever again. He told his IT guys, to transform ALL of his systems within half a year.
Well, they did it, it cost them some effort and pain during the transition, but suddenly they had to spend less money on IT than before. The transition payed off during the first year of fully using the new environment.
And Windows, as well as MS Office are not the big lock-in issues any more.
The major lock-ins are Macros and some applications which don’t have an equivalent Linux application.
The average Linux-distro is more than a match for Windows, and OOo is good enough for most Office workers.
If a withdrawal of Windows + MSOffice would be FORCED on the EU, we would reform the IT landscape within the first 3 Months by 90%. The rest would get skipped, because it was not needed anyway, or new Software would be written. After one year everything would work just as well (or bad) as it does now.
Yes, it’s a good thing Microsoft is the only manufacturer of Operating Systems. I’m sure it wouldn’t at all be a big opportunity for the competition.
If you don’t like the rules, you’re free to not sell your product in the market.
Of course, it’s all pretty moot because Microsoft won’t pull anything, Europe is way to big a market to ignore.
If everyone in Europe would use them then it wouldn’t be a problem now, would it.
Yes, they’re both pretty much assholes.
I agree with you on software patents also.
Actually, at least one major European political party seems to have reached a conclusion that the use of open-source software could reduce licensing costs and free up the government from being locked into “long-term, monopoly supply situations” (their words). They seem to think it could save them, and hence the taxpayer, a considerable amount of money.
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2235240/tories-nearing-open-sourc…
Perhaps it is Microsoft apologists of whom one could say: “boy oh boy are they in for a big surprise”.
Edited 2009-01-29 01:52 UTC
a few days a go i replaced windows with ubuntu linux and it works without problems its even faster than windows
no one cares about msooxml* everyone i know delete docx xlsx pptx ..
*not iso ooxml
I think it would be more important to force them to include file format support. For instance Windows itself does not support opening Word and Excel files… even if there is a free word and excel viewer downloadable from microsoft.com but nobody knows about it and buys the office suite just for opening files (?).
And of course they (Apple, Microsoft etc) should support much more file formats by default but i won’t list them now.
Edited 2009-01-26 13:30 UTC
I’m, for sure, not a Microsoft, or IBM, or Sun or any company follower by any stretch. Making a live from development and software/network support make us put things in perspective.
If the governments really want to keep competitiveness on market, they really should push very hard on open standards and interoperability an then let companies compete. Any other arbitrary way to force how/what companies offer is just that, arbitrariness. Do you want to sell a new software to deal with user files? Fine, it must be shipped from day one with a way to be perfectly exported to a standard format with no loss in functionality or not be allowed at all. Is your project to be accessed by internet? Should not go online unless the more important browser can handle it.
But what we see? Web portals from government that must be accessed by a particular browser! What a joke!
Because …. well I have been telling ppl that
EU doesn’t want to fix the problem. They just want to do something sound to calm silly people and incompetent & whinning companies in europe.
There is no problem with the supposedly-monopoly OS or web issue. If they want they could break it overnight by replacing all windows installation and forcing all gov websites to follow W3C’s standard.
You have no clue how antitrust works.
Basically antitrust law is not political. It does not follow a political agenda except as to enforce competition laws. It also has nothing to do with other policies.
In a order driven governmental structure, you don’t investigate in order to find something to punish a company. You have a law, you have a complaint, you investigate the complaint, you hear the accused party, you decide if the market order was infringed by the pratices.
If the EU really wanted to go after Microsoft it would have a close look at the enforcement of its state procurement rules.
In this day and age selling an OS without browsing capabilities is like selling a car with no wheels. Anyone wanting to get one would be forced to physically go and get a set of wheels and then install them on their own in order to be able to cruise around.
Forcing Microsoft to include competing browsers in their installation is a better choice but still sounds lame to me. I am not sure what would be the ideal compromise.
Check out My cartoon take of this story: http://www.pcdisorder.com/2009/01/ie-free-windows-dumb.html
A monopoly means a company so dominates a market that there is no other choice. Apple is now on generic hardware, and has about 20% of the desktop market. MS is now a market leader, not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. It is like saying that symbian has a monopoly on phones, completely ignoring rim and apple.
No , but then that’s part of the problem , you think your allowed to make or modify laws you don’t like …
As I suggested before why don’t you anonymou scoward all band togheter and go fight the EU laws and decision in court , most of you ar eno tunder it’s juridiction anyway …
Beside it’s not the monopoly law they broke this time.
Now when will they make the wearing of Pampers mandatory?
Why not unbundle Konqueror from KDE? or Safari?
Now fanboys will start arguing oh linux gives you more choice? you can add anything etc..normal bull****
Have anyone try to uninstll konqueror without breaking up KDE..show me the steps..
On contrary show the steps to sureshot way to Install firefox with ‘working flash’ on linux without problems?
If IE comes with linux version, will all distros INCLUDE IE as the fair game??
1) Yes you can remove konq, depending on how your distro packages it.
2)Apt-get install firefox, go to flash page, get tar file, execute binary, follow instructions.
And then you’re done.
3) If IE were to be included (in a compatible license or seperate repo) I’m sure some distros would add it, if only for web devs to test compatiblility.
Edited 2009-01-26 15:48 UTC
Yes , like say *GNOME* don’t work with/on KDE … I guess that don’t count in bizarro world …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_environment#Examples_of_deskto…
The emulator version don’t count ?
No , as some distribution are made by users and from scratch.
It’s not a game , it’s the law. If the law say IE from Microsoft must be offered then it will be offered.
Again you disagree with EU court and the laws , go in court and have them judged illegal and removed.
You think GNU/Linux is breaking the same law report them. Then face the consequence of your accusation.
One can remove Konqueror from the current version of KDE (KDE 4.1.x) without any problems whatsoever.
Steps are as follows:
apt-get remove konqueror
You can also do this using Adept Add/Remove programs, or aptitude, or synaptic.
This removes just three packages from KDE, all of them are specific to Konqueror. Not even help browsing is affected.
On a default install of KDE, removing konqueror will result in the system having no web browser. With no web browser installed, one can install another browser (or re-install konqueror) using either apt-get on the command line, aptitude from a terminal (like apt-get, but includes text menus), or via a GUI using Adept (or even Synaptic). Browsers that may be installed include those shown on the following web page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers_for_Unix/Linux
Gnash will work fine for most sites, and it is installable from the package management systems.
Failing that, 32-bit flash 10 works fine by downloading it from the Adobe web site, and running the script according to the instructions.
If you don’t trust running a script, then just copy the binary executable to a spot within the libraries (say /usr/local/lib), and then make a symbolic link to it in the plugins directory of your web browser.
There is also a 64-bit version of flash 10 available from the Adobe website, but that is only a beta at this time (it works very well though). Still, that is better than Windows, for which there is no 64-bit version available at all.
As for including IE with Linux … ask Microsoft about that, because they are the distributors of IE. Assuming that you do have a version of IE from Microsoft, Linux can run it OK under wine.
Edited 2009-01-27 03:00 UTC
To be fair, Konq is simply a wrapper for KHTML. Removing it doesn’t remove KHTML from KDE, and KHTML is a kpart that is required by many applications beyond Konq.
I only bring this up because we’ve reached a point where html-processing is becoming a componet of the OS, it’s that ubiquitous.
The problem we have is that everyone, whether MS, Apple, KDE, Gnome or whoever else, has their own html component that they depend on. Until the various html engines can agree to comply with a fixed set of standards, then it’s not reasonable to expect platforms to test against every possible html engine.
Microsoft relies on IE as a component to the same extent that KDE relies on KHTML (ok, maybe quite a bit more). Trident is utilized for many other functions in Windows beyond web browsing. KDE by the same token now relies not only on KHTML, but Webkit as well. How would plasma fair if the Mozilla community insisted that KDE users have the option to substitute gecko as the web rendering engine instead of webkit?
Getting rid of Konq on KDE is similar to removing IE from Windows… it removes the web browsing component, but it retains the core technology.
I hate to be in the position to defend MS, but I think this situation is ridiculous. I wouldn’t want the EU to dictate how KDE structures their platform architecture, so I can’t morally support the same arbitrary decision being made against MS.
The only valid argument I’ve seen regarding MS and their “monopoly” position with regards to IE, is the fact that they have deliberately/inadvertently broken web standards to their favor. And I do think that is a serious issue, but I don’t think this is the correct solution. Rather, the EU could instead insist that all EU websites and any similar web-based interaction be based upon existing web-standards, whether than conforming to Microsoft’s version of the web. To a certain extent, they have facilitated the adoption of IE-standards by conforming to them, so it would send a powerful message to the EU community if IE suddenly broke when accessing gov’t websites because it doesn’t comply to established standards. I suspect that would go farther to addressing the core issue. Particularly if other governments followed.
I applaud the EU for standing up to Microsoft, but I can’t help thinking that their sanctions accomplish very little to benefit consumers. Better that they use their weight to adopt and enforce open standards, and help shift the market to follow, rather than arbitrary punishment against MS. Governments should be enforcing openness by action, not by sanction.
Note, I’m not arguing with anything you pointed out, just “hijacking” your post to present a different perspective…
> To be fair, Konq is simply a wrapper for KHTML. Removing it doesn’t remove KHTML from KDE, and KHTML is a kpart that is required by many applications beyond Konq.
Are you sure? Qt4 now contains a version of webkit. Wouldn’t that be used for internal purposes and not KHTML? Qt4 is the basis, after all, of rendering the desktop in KDE.
Regardless, the point is that whatever renderer is used internal to the OS, one cannot feed it external-web-data without konqueror. This is not the case for Trident.
Trident is fed with external data from the web even if IE is s unset as the default browser, and even if the IE icon is remved from the desktop. Feeding Trident (and ActiveX) with data from the wider web still exposes the Windows system to attack. The fact that Trident (and ActiveX) cannot be removed or separated from web-originated-data is a major part of the issue.
Yes … except that AFAIK, Trident (and ActiveX) for rendering and IE for web browsing is the only case where these functions are inseparably handled by the same piece of code.
In the case of Apple, KDE, Gnome or whoever else the internal uses of html rendering can be separated from the web browser.
I’d go with the alternative. Rather than forcing Microsoft to re-write their OS and browser, I’d just require (in the EU) that there be two separate instances of it, one instance for internal uses, and the other instance web-facing. The web-facing one would be required to be compliant with W3C standards, with no special-to-Microsoft extensions. This approach would fix the problem also.
Edited 2009-01-27 05:09 UTC
From a technical standpoint, I see no problem with a default install of Windows that does not include Internet Explorer (or any web browser).
You do not need a web browser in order to download a web browser.
It would be a relatively simple matter for Windows to develop a menu link that launches a graphical downloader that assists the user in the process of downloading a self-extracting executable installer for IE (or any other browser). wget, or the myriad of other download tools, would work as well.
I said something similar in a comment in a previous article, only difference being that my idea was a wizard (since Microsoft seems to love them so much), yet people still managed to defend Microsoft.
Is it possible to use Widows update without IE?
Vista’s Windows Update does not use IE.
And the Automatic Updates thingy doesn’t use IE.
In my opinion EU should force Microsoft and hardware companies to:
– make public the windows OEM prices for the consumers and all computer makers and integrators, even if MS set prices varying with the units sold.
– refund any windows OEM sold with computers if the client desn’t want to pay it using in a simple procedure. You as consumer should not be obliged to pay for a computer “accessory” if you not want. For me the story that a computer cannot be sold without an operating system is a bullshit. Put a FreeDOS installation or give for free a linux livecd if it was true.
– include at least 2 IE competitors included in every computer with windows OEM sold and installed.
– remove thw windows update dependency of IE. MS should make independent applications to do it.
– MS should be forced to make free viewers for every proprietary file format created by the company and for at least 3 or 4 of the main non-MS operating systems, like MacOSX, linux. etc.
Why? What would it accomplish? Should the OEM contract pricing for intel processors, nvidia chipsets, Seagate hard drives, and every other manufacturer component possible, be made public as well?
Let’s take it a step farther, and have the government regulate the price that OEMs should charge for systems, and see how well that works for the economy. Maybe they should control the software that users can use, as well.
There is certainly much to criticize about Microsoft’s business practices, but targeting them for unreasonable government intervention simply opens the door for further unreasonable government intervention right across the board. No matter how much you dislike Microsoft, this isn’t a road that you, as a consumer, wants to go down.
You can’t demand a refund from Ford because they bundled an engine with your car when you’d prefer to install your own.
There is an argument to be made about Microsoft enforcing acceptance of an EULA, but that is completely separate from what you’re discussing.
If a vendor won’t sell a system without Windows pre-installed, then find another vendor. They are out there. It just means you, as the consumer, need to make a little more effort in your purchasing and be prepared to sacrifice some of the benefits that the “Windows” hardware manufacturers offer.
This isn’t a Microsoft issue. It’s a vendor issue. Again, this isn’t something the gov’t should be interfering in.
Forcing you to accept an EULA is different, and if MS wants to hide behind these then they need to accept the consequences that certain jurisdictions hold with regards to refunding etc., but it shouldn’t be an enforced requirement on manufacturers.
Who decides which 2 competitors are included? What if HP chooses Safari and Firefox, will Opera then turn around an claim unfair business practice?
And who at HP, or any other manufacturer, is going to deal with the potential for increased customer support, from bundling additional software?
Remember that the reason people pay for name-brand software is the (sometimes unreasonable) expectation that the manufacturer will stand behind the system. Is Mozilla, Apple or Opera willing to invest in additional resources to help support customers that are “paying” for a browser since it is included with the system they purchased?
Of course, hardware manufacturers already bundle software, but those vendors generally pay a fee. Forcing hardware manufacturers to install software by mandate will simply result in incurred costs that will be happily passed on to consumers.
They already have.
Why? I understand the point you’re trying to make, but you’re not even addressing the core problem, simply encouraging wider spread adoption of proprietary standards.
If the gov’t is going to intervene in this area, then they should ditch proprietary standards and utilize open ones. And refuse to utilize software that doesn’t comply. That will do far more to impact Microsoft’s behavior than any nuisance-type remedies will.
There is a reasonable suspicion in the netbook market that Microsoft is subsidising OEMs for the installation of XP in order to drive out Linux from the market. (I would be interested to hear of any netbook where one can get the exact same model hardware-wise with either Linux or XP installed as an option, and what the price difference is).
If true, that would amount to dumping or price collusion (depending on what exactly was done). These are illegal anti-competitive practices in most countries, for any company, let alone a monopoly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
Edited 2009-01-27 05:32 UTC
Yes. I think Intel did the same illegal dumping against AMD in the past. It is inquestionable the near monopoly of Windows + Intel.
Public and non-discriminatory prices are legal and should be forced by the EU, EUA and all the other countries.
Perhaps you could demand a refund from Ford if the engine they bundled with your car is broken by design.
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1105033&threshold=0&commen…
This would be the rough equivalent of Ford engines not working with standard petrol (by design), and hence forcing all service stations to stock Ford gasoline as well as standard gasoline.
Of course, if you tried to put Ford gasoline in the tank of any other car … it would break that cars engine.
Why not ?
Your not , your making ridicule of your own argument.
They make themself the target , by breaking the law.
You failed to proove , you know in court , that the demand where unreasonnable.
Actually you can.
1. The motor come with blueprints.
2. You can swap in any motor you want.
3. There is a big customization market and really big after market for it.
No , the argument as been made that they are all illegal , because most people don’t have any clue what it say , that they did not enter into it with same bargainning power.
Then they are doing something illegal …
Actually all vendor have testified to being pressused and menaced by Microsoft under oath …
The end user.
The same people that already do for all their included software …
They already do the support.
It’s a punishment for Microsoft , that your falsely arguing is actually a hardware maker problem …
If Microsoft can’t follow the law and include what is demanded of them then the law will punish them and the hardware maker will drop them as not to be accomplice in Microsoft criminal activities.
Forgive me if I don’t respect or believe your words …
Proprietary standards are not illegal … Yet 😉
They already do require open source solution , the problem with Microsoft ( and Open Source in general ) is they support the standard but they modify and break the support of other of it by adding addition on top of it that they don’t share with others. Everything that exist is based on Open Source standards.
Free Software is the only real viable solution.
They can do both , and that’s what they are doing …
The problem with your argmunet and why it’s flaud is that Microsoft is not a respectfull corporation that follow all laws and respect the courts and market it’s in or even the punishment it’s suppose to follow.
They abuse there market privilege to kill competition in other markets.
Edited 2009-01-27 08:38 UTC
Only because in the USA it is a common pratice to sell bundles of products without choice, unbundling rights or refuse to refund some non desired part it does not mean that is completely fair or legal.
See the Michael Moore’s Sicko film
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/
to see how big companies drive the laws and politics to distort the free market, non-wild capitalism and consummer rights in america.
The Europeans seem to have this insane thing for wasting public funds going after remedies that the buying public doesn’t actually want.
It’s a win-win situation. The EU get funded by MS rather than taxes, and we will pay less for Microsoft software once competition is restored
Exactly. If they end up forcing Microsoft to release a version of Windows without IE, it’ll probably go over as well as their WMP-less offering.
Personally, I’m not sure I’d really want a copy of Windows without IE, even if I don’t use it. It might’ve made sense when IE was a security nightmare, but nowdays, IE is pretty well sandboxed and doesn’t cause much of a threat, nor does it integrate with Windows explorer like it used to.
Plus, without IE, will any app that uses the MSHTML API even work anymore? I actually use that API with several of my AutoIt scripts. And if all that code was still there even if IE wasn’t, it would kind of defeat the purpose, wouldn’t it?
Edited 2009-01-26 20:37 UTC
There could simply be a design to have the equivalent of MSHTML for internal-to-the-OS purposes (such as displaying help pages) that was incapable of being fed with data from the web.
This is AFAIK the way that KDE4 has divorced the web-facing konqueror from the internal-to-the-OS rendering functions of Qt. Qt 4 has an internal version of webkit. Konqueror still uses KHTML. The two are entirely separate pieces of code. One can remove konqueror without disturbing Qt4 or the rest of the KDE4 desktop in any way.
Edited 2009-01-27 03:10 UTC
this is the kind of thinking that needs to stop! companies souldn’t be forced to provide an alternative to their own software just because users might not know that their are other options with makes for an “unfair advantage.” This practice only enchourages users to continue to be lazy and uneducated.
what should happen is have information proveded to the user to let them know there are infact alterntives and if they want they can look into and learn about it.
Now I understand compnaies getting upset that IE is bundled with windows, but the fact of the matter is it’s all about how you market your product. if you want it included, start making deals with OEM’s. Who else got a computer 6 years ago that came with Netscape as well as IE (raises hand) anyone else? (lots of hands go up).
so you see, the government should not be fighting the battles that the corporations should be fighting. and it certainly shouldnt force a company to leave out or make offer an alternative due to “users being unaware of alternatives.” If i buy a car (and i did just get a new Nissan Altima coupe) it is my job as the one purchasing the car to research it before buying it and compair it to others in its market sector. it would be like having the goverment make the Nissan dealership also have honda accords on the lot.
“The statement of objections seeks to impose a remedy that is different than the remedy imposed in the earlier proceeding concerning Windows Media Player. While computer users and OEMs are already free to run any Web browsing software on Windows, the Commission is considering ordering Microsoft and OEMs to obligate users to choose a particular browser when setting up a new PC”
(found here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3374 )
this is only going ot cause more problems and bloat. If the EOM’s have comprehensive education about hte browser selection then thats good. any the problem with this is that you can’t just copy the company that makes the broswer’s info about it, as in most cases it is clearly bias information or propaganda. every company that makes a browser will give its strong ponts and claim superiority (hint: most already do). so then you need unbias comparisons and data. and who will have to pay for these comparisons and research? will the EU make Microsoft? or make the OEM’s?
…ug, the sad part is that with all of these agencies willing to fight peoples or companies batles for them, it just encourages a culture of lazyness that in turn breeds stupidity…
(to frustereated to spell check, sound it out)
Fair enough.
If Microsoft were to make IE un-installable, or alternatively at least make it standards-compliant and not “extended”, then what you suggest would then become an acceptable alternative to forcing Microsoft to offer a choice.
If a choice of browser was made available during setup, then the latest version should be downloaded from an agreed “never to change” URL for each make of browser (or the browser chooser downloads a list of browsers/URLs from MS and uses that to display the list and download from). And, yes, this includes Internet Explorer too, why not? At least this way, they get an up-to-date version with the latest features and security fixes.
So, Microsoft will offer Lynx as the alternative?
Since Microsoft’s OS offerings lack a package manager of any form, one needs a working graphical browser in order to be able to download and install anything.
http://www.dillo.org/
There you go. Standards compliant as far as it goes, as a bonus.
It is pathetic to defend criminal in this way: oh I killed someone and now I will be in jail…whaa but other do same and some of them still free!!!
So STFU with those comments “apple do same”.
I have to say that these comments always just get so ridiculous as it eventually boils down to this:
Linux fanboys think that the convicted monopolist evil empire should be crushed, and that anything done to hurt them is just peachy keen.
Microsoft fanboys think everyone is out of touch with reality, and what is good for Microsoft is good for the world.
Maybe what is really happening is that bloggers have banded together to insure that they will have continuing topics to rant about (for/against) for the coming year.
Maybe this is the EU stimulus package for bloggers?
No matter what this is really about, everyone needs to simply remove the name of the company and then question the merits of the EU actions. And maybe it should just be this way for anything and everything from now on? The same thing with any cult fandom regarding either a movie or TV series. I see movies that are just wretched get high ratings because the cult surrounding it, although numbered few are simply vocal enough. I see cults around certain TV shows that have yet to air already anointing it the next best show.
My point being of course is that there would be much more worthwhile conversation if people could discuss, not argue, but discuss the merits of the case, and not simply who is involved.
They should do a few other things while thinking about it:
1) Force MS to have a proper rapid and convenient method of returning Windows for credit
2) Stop MS charging any licenses on the basis of all your computers, instead of on the basis of all your equipped computers
3) Force Apple to give a similar refund program for OSX bought bundled
4) Stop Apple trying to stop people installing OSX on the hardware of their choice
5) Stop Apple sabotaging iTunes/iPod database management from Unix/Linux
6) Get the iTunes store purchasing mechanism unbundled from the iTunes software
7) Force Apple to open up the app store to competing (ie non-webkit) browsers.
8) Tell both Apple and MS that the price of bundling their own browsers and email clients will be the obligation to bundle other ones, with no preferential treatment for any particular one.
9) Make it clear that any sort of anti competitive incentives or pressures to bundle or not include competitive offerings will be hit very hard, whether its Apple, MS or anyone else.
Put the fear of the Commission into them! They will get religion fast, and it will be a pleasure to watch.
I’m not sure i understand the concept of separating the MSIE browser from the Windows OS, or forcing OEM’s to drop browsers altogether. It’s kind of a 1995 approach to a 2009 situation. I would be more in favor of forcing Microsoft to comply with Open Web Standards and proposals that the EU determines would be best going forward. The browser is just a bridge between end users and the Web. It’s what crosses that bridge that Microsoft seeks to control. Control the containers of information (formats, protocols and interfaces) and you own whatever crosses the bridge.
Microsoft would of course protest that this would limit innovation and result in Windows-MSOffice bound consumers being left behind. Not true, as long as Microsoft is also allowed to introduce innovative enhancements as Open Web Standards proposals. This is the WebKit model adopted by the WebKit community (Includes Apple, Google, Adobe, Nokia, Palm, and RiMM among many others).
The WebKit approach to Open Web Standards is to correctly implement the most advanced versions of W3C, ISO-IETF, and Ecma recommendations, but not be held back by the glacial pace of the consortia (pay to play) process. WebKit innovations are submitted back to the standards consortia on the fly, as proper proposals ready for consideration. Most important though, the WebKit community doesn’t wait. Which is okay since WebKit is an open source community flush with the reality that the Open Web is the only way forward.
In fact, the EU would benefit their interoperability desires greatly by joining the WebKit open source community and contributing directly to this incredible push of the Open Web envelope. The first and most important contribution being the demand that vendor products sold to EU governments fully support and implement both Open Web standards and, the WebKit innovative enhancements.
Some will read this and wonder why WebKit and not Mozilla Firefox?
No doubt that Firefox and the Mozilla open source community are the great defenders of the Open Web. I’m afraid to even think about where the Open Web would be without them. By way of comparison, when it comes to the Open Web, the standards consortia and orgs are secondary players to the Mozilla main event. The issue however is that of pushing the Open Web forward with innovative enhancements and break through inventions without compromising global and public facing interoperability.
The importance of rapidly advancing smartphone and netbook devices at the edge of the Open Web is complimented by convergence into the cloud computing model at the core. This is clearly WebKit territory! WebKit owns the edge of the Open Web, yet is becoming increasingly important to architectural changes resonant at the core.
……………………………………………….
We all know the impact the WebKit layout/rendering engine and document model has had with smartphones and PDA’s. Buyt that’s only a fraction of the WebKit story. In the RiA arena (Rich Internet Applications), WebKit is the Open Web runtime engine and developer target; destined and determined to compete with both the Adobe AiR-Flex-Flash RiA model, and, Microsoft’s XAML-Silverlight-WPF-.NET proprietary RiA.
At the heart of the battle for the future of the Open Web is the HTML document model. WebKit is clearly pushing the envelope here with a very advanced visual document model comprised of edge HTML, CSS, SVG, JavaScript and DOM techniques. Tilt and touch an iPhone, wallow for a moment in the dance of the sugarplum documents, and you’ll understand that this isn’t your grandfathers Open Web. (Anti-competitive Apple patent barriers and claims not withstanding – but that’s an issue that should also be on the EU’s plate).
Adobe AiR also implements the WebKit layout engine, but falls behind when it comes to the WebKit visual document model. For one thing, they use SWF instead of SVG. The larger Open Web issue though is that Flash based RiA is at least 80% application and perhaps only 20% document model. Visual documents are far more portable an interface into interactive information aggregations and systems, and far closer to end user sovereignty than an application. The WebKit approach is just the opposite; 80% visual document and 20% application, with advanced libraries and browser embedded JavaScript engines carrying an ever increasing load.
Having said that, Adobe is hardly a threat to the future of the Open Web. Especially since the desktop oriented Flash application model can’t (as yet) run with the tilt, touch and flow demanded by visual edge devices. No, the real threat to the Open Web comes from Microsoft WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation layer) and the plethora of proprietary but Web ready formats, protocols and interfaces implemented.
WPF is a fully fleshed family of very advanced but very proprietary alternatives to Open Web formats, protocols and interfaces. The XAML “fixed/flow” document model combines with other WPF technologies such as Silverlight, XPS, LINQ, Smart Tags, and the SharePoint Collaboration Protocol (to name but a few), is a very advanced alternative to Open Web HTML, XHTML, CSS, SVG, RDF, RDFa, SPARQL, PDF, JavaScript, XMPP, and WebDav.
It seems to me that the Microsoft plan going forward is to offer users a choice between half-way implemented and aging Open Web standards, and/or, very rich and feature filled WPF alternatives that are fully integrated into a converged platform of Microsoft desktops, servers and devices. The convergence of these Microsoft platforms centers around the MS WebStack-Cloud-RiA model that features a Exchange-SharePoint-SQL Server juggernaut at the core. With near 100% dominance of business desktop productivity systems, Microsoft can control and direct the great transition of these business systems and processes to a Web centric core, using application and platform component level integration of WPF formats, protocols and interfaces. If users opt for conversion to Open Web alternatives, (which they can), business processes will break. The great transition will be one of costly and disruptive “rip and replace” as opposed to the gradual “re-purposing” promised by integrated but proprietary Microsoft technologies.
It seems to me that Microsoft has figured out an anti-trust strategy based on strategic “dualism”. The way this works is that their applications offer a Hobbsian choice for embracing and engaging extraordinary Web productivity advantages; choose to convert output to crippled and aging Web standards, and break legacy systems; or, stay “in-process” and incorporate at the Microsoft application layer Web universal connectivity, advanced messaging and communications, and interactive collaborative computing. Not much of a choice, but there it is. Compliance with open standards, the Microsoft way.
Microsoft further compliments this application duality by joining the many open standards initiatives. Here they use well reasoned arguments for backwards compatibility that trumps demands for rapi9d and innovative advances. In this way, Microsoft succeeds in effectively stalling and dumbing down work that competitors and OSS communities need if they are to compete against the monopolists WebStack-Cloud-RiA proprietary initiatives.
This is the challenge the EU faces.
……………………………….
Maybe the EU can right the marketplace and restore competition by identifying all proprietary formats, protocols and interfaces used by Microsoft in an anti-competitive way; then issue a directive to either replace these locks with open standard alternatives, or pay a monthly anti-competitive reimbursement penalty until such time as the end user effectively replaces these systems.
This approach is similar to the “WiNE solution” put forward to Judge Jackson as part of the USA anti-trust remedy. Judge Jackson favored a break up of Microsoft into two divisions; Operating systems and other businesses. Few believed this was enforceable, with many citing the infamous “Chinese Wall” claims made by Chairman Bill to previo
made by Chairman Bill to previous generations of developers and software vendors he sought to entice to the Windows platform. Hence the “WiNE solution”.
This proposal recognized that end users purchasing Microsoft bound applications, and then building around these bound applications important business systems and processes, were as injured by Microsoft’s monopolist abuses as developers and competing vendors. Trapped by their legacy investments in Microsoft bound digital systems, any punishment of the Redmond behemoth would inflict an even more serious cost on innocent end users. The only way to effect a solution that restores market competition without also punishing users with a costly and disruptive rip and replace or stagnate decision, would be to have Microsoft pay the cost of transitioning vested applications and systems to an alternative platform.
Like the Open Web, the largely open source Linux-GNU platform falls into that unique category of being (for all practical purposes) “owned by none but useful to all”. So, using onerous monetary fines to force Microsoft’s assistance in porting the entire Windows API to WiNE, one application at a time, seemed a reasonable way to restore open market competition to our digital future. Many thought of the WiNE approach as a Microsoft funded project for fully documenting the Windows and MSOffice productivity environment API’s. Something Chairman Bill long ago promised, but never delivered. The fabled level playing field that sucked an entire generation of developers into the Windows hole.
We now know that one time financial penalties go nowhere. These penalties are written off as a cost of doing the very profitable monopolists business. This is especially problematic today since it increasingly looks like Microsoft has figured out how to game the “open standards” system. We needed a lasting solution designed to meet the current state of vested applications and business systems, and the WiNE proposal looked to be a good place to start. Sadly, Microsoft prevailed then and now they threaten to break a precious public treasure, the Open Web. Sure, the consumer Web will likely go Open Web, with Google dominating consumer clouds. But unless the EU can figure out how to crack into Microsoft dominance of desktop business systems, and insist on full featured Open Web enhancements and transitions, the business Web is likely to be owned and dominated for years to come by Microsoft.
Hope this helps,
~ge~
Gary, you are wrong here for a reason. Look, this is “rule of law”. Someone files a complaint about x, the authority investigates x on grounds of law, you get a ruling on x and expect compliance of the business with x.
You are saying, oh yeah, there is this discussion about x but I find y more interesting. Why doesn’t the EU go for y?
Microsoft never understood that this is not about deals with authorities but compliance with rulings.
It doesn’t matter if the authority “wants” X or not, it has no target except that it enforces antitrust laws.
Musing about the Windows API is just off-topic.
If you are ordered to get me a candy stick you cannot provide chocolate instead. This has nothing to do with whether I like chocolate less or even prefer it. You can get me chocolate, thanks, or honey and I still request you to get me the candy stick: nothing more, nothing less.
The EU targeting a US company under the pretext of “antitrust.”
This hardly qualifies as news. The easiest way for Microsoft, Intel, Google and Apple to counter these attacks is to convince the US to launch similar “antitrust” investigations of STMicro, ABB, Siemens, Nokia and Volkswagen. The US will shake down these EU based companies for billions and then reimburse Microsoft, Intel, Google and Apple for the legal fees they’ve incurred fighting these clearly meritorious EU’s investigations. Rinse and repeat as necessary.