Microsoft faces last chance to dodge daily EU fine (UPDATE!)

[innermindseye]

woa. even bill gates cant afford that. im sure that wont be the case though

[Icarus]

this will be interesting to see how its played out, definalty keeping an eye on this :)

[CupOWonton]

Oooh, I remmeber this. If I remember everything, the companies are abusing the legal system, convincing them they needed the windows sourcecode in order to operate properly or something totaly absurd like that.

[NeptuneImaging]

Yeah, I think they wanted MS to share their source code with their rivals. How stupid is that. These companies should not complain, since they are probably running a windows application on their machines too...behind closed doors.

It was the same shit with the media player, but everyone probably has more than one on their machine. They wanted MS to remove the media player from the Window OS

[Zarf]

Oooh, I remmeber this. If I remember everything, the companies are abusing the legal system, convincing them they needed the windows sourcecode in order to operate properly or something totaly absurd like that.


Sorry, but Microsoft was never asked to hand over any source code and in fact, was only asked to provide complete and usefull documentation regarding some of their APIs. As a matter of fact, the EU Commission has stated pretty clearly they dont want any source code (from the article)

"In addition to working with the trustee, it (Microsoft) announced this year plans to make portions of its source code -- a blueprint -- for work group servers available to licensees. But the trustee had said this was "never asked for nor indeed welcomed."

If you have any information that says the opposite, that microsoft has indeed been asked to hand over source code, I would love to see it.

Cheers,
Xarf

[NeptuneImaging]

But I still think this is a dumb reason to fine them. that is like a shoalin master sharing his secret techniques with a Samurai (bad analogy I know). And other competitors should be all up in arms because MS is successful with their stuff.

I remember to when the US gov was trying to bust MS for antitrust too...and I am willing to bet my dollar that these government agencies run an MS product on their computers. So the EU should get off MS's back and tell their rivals to innovate on their own.

[CupOWonton]

If you have any information that says the opposite, that microsoft has indeed been asked to hand over source code, I would love to see it.
Cheers,
Xarf

You should find it stating otherwise in the previous article posted in the thread on this from months ago. They may have realised they cant legaly ask for it no matter what country theyre in and decided to cange things up a bit.

Also, how come theyre the only ones complaining, I would assume NO ONE ELSE could work with windows if they never gave out the right information. And if NO ONE ELSE could, they would ALL BE PROTESTING in every country.

Its blatantly obvious they want more than what they need.

[kaiser_pro]

its a bit difficult if you have to reverse engineer (which is illegal in america DMCA, or what ever the hell it is) something to innovate "on your own"

anyway its called unfair buisness practice, hence why HP got busted for deliberately making ink cartridges more obtuse, to stop people refilling then, and forcing people to by a diffrent type everytime you buy a diffrent printer.

in britian at least, just becuase your rich doesnt mean you should dictate the law (cough MPIAA et al)

[MooseDog]

even bill gates cant afford that

ms can afford a multiple of that, and bill could personally afford that for many years. it's chump change and i'm gonna guess internally just an annoyance, but nevertheless a pr nightmare.

[KayosIII]

The problem I am having is that the EU vs Microsoft is a closed case and so there is very little unbiased, quality information available.

The characteristics and the results are quite similar to the US case however.

Lets look at the Issues:

BUNDLING
=======
*With the US case Bundling was a big issue. It was an issue because Microsoft made an agreement with the DOJ that it would not bundle products with windows as part of an agreement from an earlier antitrust case. (Microsoft required oem's pay licensing on all systems that the oem sold regardless of wether they shipped with MS Dos or not).

*Microsoft has demonstrated its ability to prevent OEMs from bundling software with shipping systems.

*A product that is bundled has a significant advantage over a product that cannot be bundled. Not so much in the home market where the user has control of their computer and can download the competing product easily but in large installations, business's, schools etc where it is often policy to standardise on a single product.

* With regards to Media Player - this really is not about one media player versus another. It is about the streaming server market. As it stands only microsofts streaming server products can interoperate with WMP. This brings us to the second point.

TIGHT INTERGRATION
================
Microsoft can push its dominance into *EXISTING* markets by using its DESKTOP OS and Office Monopolies. By tightly intergrating there products with these WINDOWS and OFFICE they effectively lock competitors out of the market. By strict definition of the Antitrust laws tight integration should be illegal. What is actually being sought however is to moderate the competitive advantage given by this integration by giving competitors the information they need to intergrate with the same product. This is to be achieved by making Microsoft publish interoperability information between Microsofts OS and seperate products.

So has the EU got it right - probably not... I think the correct course would be to
1) prevent Microsoft from interfering or using licensing threats to prevent an OEM or make it financially unviable to bundle non microsoft product.
2) Rather than making it law... make it necessary for all software infrastructure used by the EU itself to publish all interfaces for interoperability... Since the EU is a large customer this could have a simular effect. Though maybe not as easy to work with in the long run...

However in this second respect the EU is asking for basically what the US is already asking for and expects Microsoft have by the end of this year.

[CupOWonton]

Ok, as far as a complaint about MS 'bundling' software, let me spell it out for ya: S-T-U... you get the rest.

Their current set of " bundled" software, is just "CONVENIENCE".
What compedators seem to want is something along the lines of selling Windows MediaCenter without the ability to play video because it should be illegal for microsoft to develope and distribute a media player. Apparently Microstoft has to ONLY make OS's and never actualy include anything but the core of the program itself. Any word processor, art program, or media player should be made by someone else because they dont DESERVE the right to produce a media player, word processor, e-mail mannager, or anything else. Thats realy where this is all going.

People buy windows for convenience, and if they dont like a part of it, theyre FREE TO DOWNLOAD OR BUY ANYTHING ELSE FOR IT.

EX1: IE SUCKS, get Firefox - I use mozilla Firefox because its a hell of a lot more secure, it has tons of options I love, and I can customise the hell out of it. Also, pages seem less likely to hang up wile loading with Firefox, and that makes me happy.

EX2:APPLE's own QuickTime player for WINDOWS- Download free or Buy pro versions - This is a NESSISARY program for anyone who plays videogames, uses the internet, or makes media of any kind. I dont see anyone complaining that QT has the other half of the market in a strangle hold.

EX3: Windows media player *Like many other programs that come with windows* is LIMITED, You cant do jack with it, and in order to realy do a lot of work if you actualy plan on doing work, you have to buy a program or find a realy nice open source project to get into.

EX4: You have to buy MSOFFICE in order to get a good word processor- so, hell, that doesnt even apply anymore unless someone wants to complain about how good Notepad or wordpad is.

EX5: E-mail mannagers- again, you either get MSoffice, use the cheap cruddy program that came with windows, use net-mail mannagers which I see a lot of people doing these days, or you get a hold of another program either through buying or another open source project.

And yes, Microsoft owns everything now, I know, and I dont exactly like it, Im not comfortable with it at times, but ya know what, if hardware developers wanted to develope specificly for a competing program, they can, and they have. You dont see nothing but DX cards, they run OpenGL as well.

And, theres alwayse linux. If other companies -want- to develope compatable software and hardware for linux boxes, thats fine by me. The UI is similar enough to windows that it realy wouldnt effect me much as long as I could have access to the programs I need.

And jesus, even at the base consumer level. If linux had a -regular joe- mode for people who dont know what to do with a computer, that'd make it even easier on them, but its not just MICROSOFT that has to bow down, its everyone else deciding they need to make an alternative available.

[ThE_JacO]

But I still think this is a dumb reason to fine them. that is like a shoalin master sharing his secret techniques with a Samurai (bad analogy I know). And other competitors should be all up in arms because MS is successful with their stuff.


sorry, it's just NOT the case.
what they are asking is, if microsoft made cars, on the lines of "could you PLEASE not weld everything together, including the car-stereo system? so that if a third party producing after-market equipment might at least sell radios that will fit in your car?".

Microsoft's current position is more similar to a theoretical ford forcing people to buy car-stereos from them then to a samurai or a shaolin kung-fu master.

a server side media platform that can't be accessed properly by anybody except MS, because the documentation is lacking, if not sometimes almost intentionally misleading, is an attempt to enforce a rightful de-facto monopoly in the OS area, to wedge yourself in a market that you don't dominate yet, the media and entertainment stations one; not to mention their attempts (mentioned in the article) on a similar line to completely eradicate, one way or another, several office automation competitors that were starting to get "a bit too much attention" in MS' opinion; and again this is downright exploiting a position on a certain market to make sure you cut others out of another, even more profitable, market.
MS is just plain scared of loosing ANY ground with media and office products and services, because those (and windows OEM) are their real cash cows, not shop-shelf XPpro packages

that is illegal in most 1st world countries that have an anti-trust organism of any kind; including the states really.

[rakmaya]

EX4: You have to buy MSOFFICE in order to get a good word processor- so, hell, that doesnt even apply anymore unless someone wants to complain about how good Notepad or wordpad is.


The Open Office from Sun does an awesome job and to me better than what MS Office does.


a server side media platform that can't be accessed properly by anybody except MS, because the documentation is lacking, if not so....

It is not just the servier side media, we have written a lot of proprietory distribution/security/role-based related application and can tell you the documentation is ZIPPO. Some of the API features have been there since Windows NT, and they don't even have enough documentation even now. Many programmer during their experience have now written articles and books, but you won't believe some of the powerful features was not published so well early.

Also, on an added note, it is the same with the Linux/Solaris, anyone tried to write a complete/robust monitoring tool knows these issues i am talking about all too well. MS is just a too wide platform where things are much more easy to develop, but when the API doc is taken off, it becomes as hard as any other platform. Which is sad b/c MS is an easy target for these law suits compared to the others.

[DorkmanScott]

sorry, it's just NOT the case.
what they are asking is, if microsoft made cars, on the lines of "could you PLEASE not weld everything together, including the car-stereo system? so that if a third party producing after-market equipment might at least sell radios that will fit in your car?".
They should start fining Compaq for soldering every damn thing to the bloody case in their desktops.

Sorry, just bought one (desperate times) and I forgot how impossible they were to upgrade.

[ThE_JacO]

It is not just the servier side media, we have written a lot of proprietory distribution/security/role-based related application and can tell you the documentation is ZIPPO. Some of the API features have been there since Windows NT, and they don't even have enough documentation even now. Many programmer during their experience have now written articles and books, but you won't believe some of the powerful features was not published so well early.

http://www.risingsunresearch.com/ << these are my desk neighbors where I work right now, and they have a pretty good idea of what it means to deal with medias and data transfers, and you'd be amazed to hear what some (experienced) field developers might have to say about the difference between protecting your intellectual property and granting access through an API just for the sake of legal issues but obfuscating it to retain a competitive advantage, the latter being 100% in violation of anti-trust schemes.

I mentioned the media platform because I have a fairly direct experience with the subject at hand, but this obviously applies to other areas where the same pattern emerges constantly (securing transmission, office backends etc.)

I'm not MS hater, and I'm writing this post from a windows install on my laptop that I quite enjoy using, but I'm surprised by how many people flap their mouth about this and shift it to anti-americanism/anti-eurpeanism when it's simply a case of a company trying to work its way through legal wormholes to acquire an unfair advantage.

Apple, Sun, MS, IBM etc. are all in the same boat, and they'd all do exactly the same if they could.

MS had the opportunity to, got busted for that, and is taking some heat for that; this doesn't make the company evil, good, the devil or a martyr, it simply makes this a case that needs to be addressed in court and regulated for the sake of creating a fair market for everybody.

(I'm not referring to you Rak, I only quoted you for commodity for the first part of the post)

[KayosIII]

Their current set of " bundled" software, is just "CONVENIENCE".
What compedators seem to want is something along the lines of selling Windows MediaCenter without the ability to play video because it should be illegal for microsoft to develope and distribute a media player. Apparently Microstoft has to ONLY make OS's and never actualy include anything but the core of the program itself. Any word processor, art program, or media player should be made by someone else because they dont DESERVE the right to produce a media player, word processor, e-mail mannager, or anything else. Thats realy where this is all going.

No that is not it at all... Microsoft can make whatever they like. They just can't tie that product to either of their monopoly holding lines - Windows and Office. The have to sell or give it away separately.

The second requirement is that if Microsoft are entering an EXISTING software market and using either of their monopoly holding lines to give themselves an unfair advantage. They have to document the connections between their new product and the monopoly holding one.

And, theres alwayse linux. If other companies -want- to develope compatable software and hardware for linux boxes, thats fine by me. The UI is similar enough to windows that it realy wouldnt effect me much as long as I could have access to the programs I need.

Well the problem here is that as Microsoft uses its unfair advantage to remove competitors from a Software market - lets say streaming media servers, content providers are going to only have one realistic option for streaming their content. That means that only clients using windows machines will be able to view this content and this will further cement Microsofts monopoly position.

[maX_Andrews]

http://www.wimp.com/mrgates/

[danimat0r]

Meh. More socialist economic idiocy from the unemployment-leaders of the civilized world.

[shuggie]

Meh. More petty capitalist sniping from a nation with one of the most grossly imbalanced wealth distributions, in the civilised world, a rebuttal as worthy of consideration as your original comment I think, which is of course none, as its a load of arse gravy rhetoric.

Every time this subject pops up the knives come out and the supposed ills of EU are pawed over, the commies aren't after you, liberal and socialist arent dirty words, Microsoft have a long history of abusing their position, and if the DOJ can't pull them up on it I hope the EU can.

[danimat0r]

If by "worst wealth distribution" you mean "least forced wealth distribution resulting in the world's strongest economy", then I wholeheartedly agree. Otherwise your comment makes confoundingly little sense.

[shuggie]

Well that was the point, it was supposed to reflect your own bafflingly extreme and hugely condescending view. There are many similarities between the US and Europe but there are many differences also, and to dismiss them as idiotic is offensive and blinkered.

[danimat0r]

What if the principles behind said differences are economically unsound and historically destructive? I've got no problem calling such things idiotic. They amount to much more than quaint cultural distinctions; these are issues that are economically and socially ravaging Europe. Unfortunately, as evidenced by the current unrest in France; reform of these policies seems unlikely, even in the face of the massive unemployment and poverty caused by much of the EU's economic direction.

Unfortunately I don't have time to continue this discussion. Ciao. :)

[yann22]

Teddy Roosevelt was a socialist ? :scream:

[shuggie]

Oh Quaint and Idiotic, thank god we have you to show us the light, millions of americans below the poverty line unable to gain access to comprehensive healthcare, as far as Econmics are concerned the US now has the largest deficit in its history, and economic growth has stalled. The rioting in France has more to do with race politics than economics but hey why let reality cloud a good argument.

[kaiser_pro]

land of the free, so long as your rich, not muslim, not indian, not black, not asian, dont thin(after all if you disagree with the current political state, your unpatriotic.)k etc etc etc

incidently the us is as far as i'm aware the only first world country without free healthcare.


but lets get to the point in hand, windows meadi player, and internet explorer were impossible to remove from windows. which meant that anyother programe in this area would by its very definition handycapped.

so to put that into a real world example (taken from British telecom, another monopoly) if you wanted the internet, or a phone line, you had to rent one from BT. no problem there. the problem came with broadband. becuase BT owned the exchanges they made to expencive for other providers to provide broadband. (Now in america this would have been fine. hence why broadband is stupidly expencive there.) This was then recitifyed so the playing fields are a bit more even. (so what? what has that done?) Now this means that ISPs could innovate with little risk. which in turn means that A) we have one of the highest growing usage of broadband in the world, and some of the lowest prices B) ADSL 2 is being rolled out all over.

not only this but BT are making even more profit, even though they "opened" up to competitors.

so to conclude. the EU whilst not perfect, has a more "open" and fair legal, and trade system, designed to protect all of its citizens, not just the rich.

also the reason why we have such high unemployment? its becuase other nations are invited to join the EU, even if they arnt economic powerhouses, as apposed to just bullying them and demanding obediance

[maX_Andrews]

since when was this about economic politics?

In any case you guys in the UK have problems too, like excessive rain, rather unfortunate looking females (and males), as well as just in general being a quite ugly place. ;-)

All in jest of course :)

[kaiser_pro]

rain is fun

it makes everyday journies look much more menacing (pathetic fallacy and all)

[shuggie]

And you forgot to mention our tea drinking and lack of dentists (I will always blame David Bowie and the royal family for that one), poor form ,tut tut. :P

[JMcWilliams]

since when was this about economic politics?

In any case you guys in the UK have problems too, like excessive rain, rather unfortunate looking females (and males), as well as just in general being a quite ugly place. ;-)

All in jest of course :)

:rolleyes:
Hilarious

[kaiser_pro]

dont forget irony

[KayosIII]

I don't really get were all the US Vs Europe fighting goes in all this. The US case lead to pretty much the same thing.... Microsoft has had an agreement with the DOJ for many years now that it would not bundle products with MS Windows and the US Legal system is already asking Microsoft to Document the same interfaces. (Their deadline is the end of this year). If it weren't for a change in government to a party that is very clearly in Microsofts pockets then the result of the US Case could have been much more severe.

This has nothing to do with Socialist vs Capitalist either. It has everything to do with keeping capitalism alive and healthy. It has everything to do with keeping a level playing field and making sure that the customer can choose between competing goods and services. Granted that some of Microsofts competition has Socialist traits but this case has nothing to do with that.

[rakmaya]

land of the free, so long as your rich, not muslim, not indian, not black, not asian, dont thin(after all if you disagree with the current political state, your unpatriotic.)k etc etc etc

incidently the us is as far as i'm aware the only first world country without free healthcare.


but lets get to the point in hand, windows meadi player, and internet explorer were impossible to remove from windows. which meant that anyother programe in this area would by its very definition handycapped.

so to put that into a real world example (taken from British telecom, another monopoly) if you wanted the internet, or a phone line, you had to rent one from BT. no problem there. the problem came with broadband. becuase BT owned the exchanges they made to expencive for other providers to provide broadband. (Now in america this would have been fine. hence why broadband is stupidly expencive there.) This was then recitifyed so the playing fields are a bit more even. (so what? what has that done?) Now this means that ISPs could innovate with little risk. which in turn means that A) we have one of the highest growing usage of broadband in the world, and some of the lowest prices B) ADSL 2 is being rolled out all over.

not only this but BT are making even more profit, even though they "opened" up to competitors.

so to conclude. the EU whilst not perfect, has a more "open" and fair legal, and trade system, designed to protect all of its citizens, not just the rich.

also the reason why we have such high unemployment? its becuase other nations are invited to join the EU, even if they arnt economic powerhouses, as apposed to just bullying them and demanding obediance

Your point is ?.... This is not a problem b/c of the US/UK differences. If it happens that if Apple can't make their software available for Windows b/c of any similar problems, you can be assured, that it will be US that will first sue MS. Not just that, in everything, it is legal, people sue for everything here. When Americans does that, people say... "ho look americans sue for every single things". When we leave things out of the way people say... "ho look americans doesn't care... so much for the land of the free".

Any case, this has no relevance here. We don't want to compare to that extend and don't want to get political here either

[kaiser_pro]

it appears the the EU is the one who is actually going to do something about it. Sure the DOJ went through the motions, but did they levvy a siginificant fine? have they brought about a seachange in the thinking at microsoft? maybe.

from the unpatriotic forigner perspective (not everyone of course) it appears that the big money calls the shots. (phones, Broadband, TV, Movies and Music) If you a big company, and something threatens you, you can send a huge lobbying team to washington and buy your self a new law to protect your company. (over simplification i know) Yes they should have a say, but not the last word.

It just appears that the whole system in america is great, so long as your at the top of the food chain, can afford legle representaion, good health insurance and have a good christian social standing.

by no means i'm not saying the UK or the EU is perfect. however in the areas higlighted above, the uk at least is significantly less murky/geared towards the rich guy.

[innermindseye]

by no means i'm not saying the UK or the EU is perfect. however in the areas higlighted above, the uk at least is significantly less murky/geared towards the rich guy.

if only my friend. it is no different here whatsoever. if you have no money, you have no opinion or worth. thats how it goes. if i had money, i would be able to promote myself so much better and people would listen. as it stands, no money such as status symbols etc means no attention. i.e my opinion is irrelevant. if i had moeny and spoke utter shite, i would be listened to and thought of as correct. how stupid.

[rakmaya]

It just appears that the whole system in america is great, so long as your at the top of the food chain, can afford legle representaion, good health insurance and have a good christian social standing.

by no means i'm not saying the UK or the EU is perfect. however in the areas higlighted above, the uk at least is significantly less murky/geared towards the rich guy.

I agree with you a lot but not by any chance that is any different in any other part of this world. Like I said this is not the issue between laws or politician's hold in US. It is that if my company thinks what EU thinks now, I can proceed through the same path against MS, but of course none hasn't in this case in US. As much advantage MS has in this world (not just in US/UK), it is also the biggest target for these kinds of law suits.

So what I am saying is that, it doesn't matter if EU, some other country or some other company that is filing the law suits. It is all the same if MS is at fault, business in US in UK will take similar action if they think MS is having unfair adtvantage that hurts them, that is the nature of business, that is the nature of people; don't need to categorize it as a racial difference.

[parallax]

Last time i had a 9 Trillion debt, i lost my house and my car.

Don't play the economics card if you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[parallax]

Not just that, in everything, it is legal, people sue for everything here. When Americans does that, people say... "ho look americans sue for every single things".

There's a difference between suing a company for monopolistic behaviour, or suing a company because they didn't write "don't put your cat in the microwave-oven" in the manual.

[Lorecanth]

Last time i had a 9 Trillion debt, i lost my house and my car.

Don't play the economics card if you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Quoted for agreement and you don't get to call it 9 when its 8.3 today. On that note when did this get political. Mod ?

[parallax]

Quoted for agreement and you don't get to call it 9 when its 8.3 today. On that note when did this get political. Mod ?

Touche, it's actually 8.372, but i can't be bothered to post the exact number. (one has to wonder though, why the limit was raised to 9 trillion..)

[kaiser_pro]

but thats only half of the US's fault, well half of you that voted anyway:)

[tozz]

I made a long rant about how companies are trying to reap what Microsoft has been sowing for 20years, and wants to so with the least humanily possible effort, but I had to go puke.

Don't like the platform, create one yourself, no? Didn't think so either.

And no, this won't end with some documented API, EU will find something else to complain about.

[mynewcat]

I made a long rant about how companies are trying to reap what Microsoft has been sowing for 20years, and wants to so with the least humanily possible effort, but I had to go puke.

Don't like the platform, create one yourself, no? Didn't think so either.

And no, this won't end with some documented API, EU will find something else to complain about.

That kind of absolutism is exactly why we have democracy. If we were to follow your logic until the end, it would be perfectly reasonable for Microsoft to eventually dominate every business and every aspect of our lives, giving them a huge power - we don't allow foreign nations or governments to do that to us, so why allow a company?

The fact is, Microsoft have a massive monopoly on a large part of our infrastructure, and that needs to be kept in check.

Edit - Why do so many people mistake the idea of capitalism, with the idea of allowing big businesses to do whatever they want in the pursuit of profit?

Are we really stuck on the idea that all big business is some benign mom n pop store that 'made it big' and just wants to do fair trade? Jesus.

I'm a capitalist, I've even agreed with a lot of what Ayn Rand has to say - but I wish some of the "pro business" chaps around here would realise that corporations like Microsoft, as entities, are some of the more destructive, insane forces of nature there are.

[tozz]

That kind of absolutism is exactly why we have democracy. If we were to follow your logic until the end, it would be perfectly reasonable for Microsoft to eventually dominate every business and every aspect of our lives, giving them a huge power - we don't allow foreign nations or governments to do that to us, so why allow a company?

The fact is, Microsoft have a massive monopoly on a large part of our infrastructure, and that needs to be kept in check.

Edit - Why do so many people mistake the idea of capitalism, with the idea of allowing big businesses to do whatever they want in the pursuit of profit?

Are we really stuck on the idea that all big business is some benign mom n pop store that 'made it big' and just wants to do fair trade? Jesus.

I'm a capitalist, I've even agreed with a lot of what Ayn Rand has to say - but I wish some of the "pro business" chaps around here would realise that corporations like Microsoft, as entities, are some of the more destructive, insane forces of nature there are.
And still they are loosing ground every day, more and more people are moving away from them. Not because EU forces them to do something, but because some people actually create something better and new instead of just clinging on the wave.
Microsoft won't dominate, simple because they can't. They lack the skill and the abilities. What they've done, they've done good.

If you're so concerned about how Microsoft dictates our lives, try checking how money rules the EU, money from other companies. So in the end you actually support what you're saying you're not. EU is dictating us, and what is EU? A couple of people, controlled by money, there's seldom, if ever, ANY democratic choice in any of the laws passed in the EU.

[mynewcat]

And still they are loosing ground every day, more and more people are moving away from them. Not because EU forces them to do something, but because some people actually create something better and new instead of just clinging on the wave.
Microsoft won't dominate, simple because they can't. They lack the skill and the abilities. What they've done, they've done good.

If you're so concerned about how Microsoft dictates our lives, try checking how money rules the EU, money from other companies. So in the end you actually support what you're saying you're not. EU is dictating us, and what is EU? A couple of people, controlled by money, there's seldom, if ever, ANY democratic choice in any of the laws passed in the EU.

Your first point is a good one - and I can't really argue with it.

Your second point, however, doesn't make great sense "If you're so concerned about how Microsoft dictates our lives, try checking how money rules the EU etc." - we're here debating Microsoft and our attitude to Microsoft's policies. We can deal with our attitudes to Europe in another forum or another context.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[RobertoOrtiz]

UPDATE:
"Microsoft Defends Itself at EU Hearing (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060330/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_microsoft;_ylt=AnjGxpWC98az5dEhdyEZrSCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-)

Microsoft said Thursday it has lived up to European Union antitrust demands, as the software company attempts to avoid new fines at the start of a two-day hearing with regulators.
But EU spokesman Jonathan Todd said the company still has to comply with a 2-year-old antitrust order to share technical information with rivals.
"The best outcome for everybody would be that Microsoft were to finally do that," he said.
The EU has threatened to fine the company 2 million euros ($2.4 million) a day backdated to Dec. 15, saying the technical manual Microsoft provided that month needed a radical overhaul to make it usable."

>>LINK<< (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060330/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_microsoft;_ylt=AnjGxpWC98az5dEhdyEZrSCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY)

-R

[tozz]

Your first point is a good one - and I can't really argue with it.

Your second point, however, doesn't make great sense "If you're so concerned about how Microsoft dictates our lives, try checking how money rules the EU etc." - we're here debating Microsoft and our attitude to Microsoft's policies. We can deal with our attitudes to Europe in another forum or another context.

Two wrongs don't make a right.
True, it's not really related, my bad.

But think of it like this, is Microsoft really dictating our lives, or are we living them with how Microsoft think we want to live them? As I said in my previous post, Microsoft has no real power over the greater mass in how we choose our computing habit. And I do believe time has shown us this. I have never seen any facts about Microsoft hindering any software development, quite the contrary, thanks to Microsoft there's an enormous amount of developement and software we can chose from.

I would love to hear what companies as Sun, IBM and Oracle will say on the hearing, all just as big anti-interoperability as Microsoft in my book. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't IBM the worlds' #1 holder of Software patents, something that prevents development more than anything else. They could of course defend Microsoft, but I think they just see their chance to stab them.

"Microsoft had earlier asked the Commission to open the hearing. The Commission refused, saying such hearings were always held behind closed doors."
When you read things like that, you can only get suspicious about the real reasons behind it all, something that affects all those millions and it should be kept secret?

Now, the fine is supposed to because Microsoft is hurting rivals, how is providing the widest platform available hurting someone? Microsoft has done all the work, it's really just to reap the benefits. There is no rival against Microsoft on the OS market (talking about non-open source software) and as such, there's noone getting hurt. If some company would start up a serious OS project, then this could be of interest.

Microsoft could give up the entire company, all source code, and all the employees, EU would still say "not enough".

[CupOWonton]

UPDATE:
"Microsoft Defends Itself at EU Hearing (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060330/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_microsoft;_ylt=AnjGxpWC98az5dEhdyEZrSCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-)

Microsoft said Thursday it has lived up to European Union antitrust demands, as the software company attempts to avoid new fines at the start of a two-day hearing with regulators.
But EU spokesman Jonathan Todd said the company still has to comply with a 2-year-old antitrust order to share technical information with rivals.
"The best outcome for everybody would be that Microsoft were to finally do that," he said.
The EU has threatened to fine the company 2 million euros ($2.4 million) a day backdated to Dec. 15, saying the technical manual Microsoft provided that month needed a radical overhaul to make it usable."


So.. they want an Everything about Microsoft-Manual for Dummies? It sounds like the information is there, they just dont know what the hell to do with it.

[shuggie]

At the end of the day, if Microsoft wants to trade in the EU, it has to toe the line, governments are elected by the people to represent their interests, this makes its decisions more important than the concerns of any particular business, which only represents itself (and by extension possibly its employees).

The EU is representing Europeans, and defending their interests in this action.
Its not a difficult concept to grasp, you may hate the ideology that is behind the laws of other regions, you may strongly disagree with their rulings, you may feel its injust and unfair, but if you want to make money there (which Microsoft surely does and then some), and to trade there, then you need to comply, or face the consequences of none compliance, it really is that simple.

As far as I can see, there were two modest requests from the EU to MS, first to supply a vanilla OS alongside the full version, and second to open up interoperability documentation to other companies. Just to clear something up once and for all, opening up OS Source code to other companies was never requested, I can only think people have claimed this, so as to paint MS as the victim in this situation, which is at best misinformed and at worst a flat out lie.

Neither request was particularly arduous, but it did mean that other MS packages such as Office would lose a competitive advantage in its market, this is obviously not a good thing for MS but it is good for consumers and competition, and in my mind perfectly fair. I think this may be where EU and USA thinking diverges.

As is so eloquently sneared by MS supporters, if you don't like the software then switch, well to that I reply if you don't like the law, then trade elsewhere.

[JeroenDStout]

"Well, if you don't like it then switch!"
"Hey, now you just did a sarcastic interpretation of the problem we have!"

[ThE_JacO]

So.. they want an Everything about Microsoft-Manual for Dummies? It sounds like the information is there, they just dont know what the hell to do with it.

it sounds like you don't really know the subject at hand well.
offering APIs without documentation is like offering a product like maya without buttons and docs, and leaving you to try all possible permutations in small scripts to create your own buttons.
you won't be able to find out 75% of what will be in there, and you'll have to re-engineer half of what's there already just hidden, while the distributor of the product will have solid in-house knowledge of everything, and will be able to offer a better solution, NOT because they did a better job, but just because they have an unfair advantage derived from cross-market exploitation a platform.

This means that the people with in-house knowledge will be able to put together a half arsed sloppy product in no time, and it will still be better then the competitors', regardless of the efforts the latter put into it.

[rakmaya]

I would love to hear what companies as Sun, IBM and Oracle will say on the hearing, all just as big anti-interoperability as Microsoft in my book. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't IBM the worlds' #1 holder of Software patents, something that prevents development more than anything else. They could of course defend Microsoft, but I think they just see their chance to stab them.

Sun. IBM and Oracle doesn't have 1/1000 of the influence MS have even if all 3 are combined in the OS and Home/Small Business market. Even as it stands now, Sun Solaris is more easier to build OS admin aaplications than Windows. This is coming from someone who had done it for last 3 years on Solaris, Windows and Linux. So don't make such a comparision when it comes to the 3rd party support each has. Of course, but MS have made life much easier in a lot of areas, but there are certain fine points which you would know only if you have been handling these.

I agree with you on Patents, but they have their reasons. I would patent my discovery if it cost me even 25 cents. But that is a discussion for some other thread.


Microsoft could give up the entire company, all source code, and all the employees, EU would still say "not enough".

Don't blame EU, that will happen everywhere. On another note, if they give up their source code, they are dead!

The only thing I don't like though is the amount of fine. I am sure there will be some closed door deals, but still it seems that EU is depending on this money to fund their public transportation service :rolleyes:

[KayosIII]

True, it's not really related, my bad.

But think of it like this, is Microsoft really dictating our lives, or are we living them with how Microsoft think we want to live them? As I said in my previous post, Microsoft has no real power over the greater mass in how we choose our computing habit.

You are probably right in the fact that the consumer is the least affected by Microsoft. However, School is one of the places that most people learn computing. At least in my country Microsoft's licensing with schools makes it *very* difficult for teachers to teach competing products if that school wants Microsoft's products at a price they can afford.

Similarly Microsoft use there conciderable economic power and market share to make it extremely difficult for OEM's to sell competing operating systems or bundle competing products.

And I do believe time has shown us this. I have never seen any facts about Microsoft hindering any software development, quite the contrary, thanks to Microsoft there's an enormous amount of development and software we can chose from.


The effect is - as you have guessed, most people go with Microsoft's platform because it is the easiest to use and offers the largest number of options. Part of this is helping ISV's and Hardware manufacturers - which I applaud Microsoft for. A large part of it though is Targeting Compeditors Revenue streams so they simply do not have the resources to compete and raising the barrier of entry to new compeditors.

I would love to hear what companies as Sun, IBM and Oracle will say on the hearing, all just as big anti-interoperability as Microsoft in my book. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't IBM the worlds' #1 holder of Software patents, something that prevents development more than anything else. They could of course defend Microsoft, but I think they just see their chance to stab them.

There has been a lot of bad blood between IBM since the joint OS/2 project... IBM have [lost out/been driven out] of both the OS market and the Office Applications markets. There is evidence to suggest that Microsoft funded the SCO attacks against IBM and the Linux community and are direct compeditors in most of the markets that IBM still operates in. I can hardly see any reason for IBM to help Microsoft.

"Microsoft had earlier asked the Commission to open the hearing. The Commission refused, saying such hearings were always held behind closed doors."
When you read things like that, you can only get suspicious about the real reasons behind it all, something that affects all those millions and it should be kept secret?

I too would have liked an open case - however the charges are very similar to those in the the DOJ and Microsoft has demonstrated its ability to spin the media. As for affecting Millions - microsoft loosing this case is not likely to damage their economical viability. Not by a long shot. Even with its api's documented Microsoft will still be able to compete very well and have a competitive advantage as the originators of that interface. However they will have to compete - which will definitely be better for the consumer.

Now, the fine is supposed to because Microsoft is hurting rivals, how is providing the widest platform available hurting someone?

Its not what Microsoft is providing but what Microsoft doing to stop other companies from providing a competing product and if those methods being employed are legal or not. In previous cases in the US Microsoft has been found guilty of using illegal business methods to keep compeditors out of the market.

Microsoft has done all the work, it's really just to reap the benefits.

The technology in question is not unique quite often Microsoft is not the first to the market with it. What Microsoft has is the customer base - what Microsoft has done is lock up things so they get the majority of the customer base by default... There is very little work involved. What was under scrutiny was the methods used by Microsoft to *Artificially* raise the barrier of entry for competitors.

There is no rival against Microsoft on the OS market (talking about non-open source software) and as such, there's no one getting hurt. If some company would start up a serious OS project, then this could be of interest.

That is because Microsoft has artificially raised the level of entry into the market to the point were it is extremely difficult to compete - (there very definition of uncompetitive practices). I will post some links on previous companies that tried to enter this market. Furthermore there are a number of OS companies in the Market that while basing there product on an Open Source software stack are still effectively competing against Microsoft in the Operating System domain.

Furthermore the reason that this case came about is because it severely affects companies competing in the server market. IE Microsoft was using its monopoly on the desktop to push other companies out of various server markets...

Microsoft could give up the entire company, all source code, and all the employees, EU would still say "not enough".

You really haven't checked your facts on this have you. Microsoft offered the Source code - the EU rejected it. What the EU wants is 1) A copy of Windows to be available without Windows Media Player preinstalled - for no more than the cost of a regular version of windows. (what it really wants is windows pricing to be more transparent but that is what it settled for) 2) All interfaces to separately available products be documented in a competent fashion and made available to 3rd parties under reasonable terms. This second item is ALMOST EXACTLY WHAT MICROSOFT AGREED TO DO as a result of the case against the DOJ in the USA ending in 2001. The 5 year grace period on that ruling almost up.

anyways some light reading...
Microsoft vs Netscape (DOJ Case)
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
Microsoft vs Be-OS
http://www.beincorporated.com/msft_complaint.pdf
Microsoft vs IBM
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/06/04/ibm_witness_the_inside_poop/
Microsoft vs Linux (leaked documents from Microsoft)
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/index.html

[mynewcat]

True, it's not really related, my bad.

But think of it like this, is Microsoft really dictating our lives, or are we living them with how Microsoft think we want to live them? As I said in my previous post, Microsoft has no real power over the greater mass in how we choose our computing habit. And I do believe time has shown us this. I have never seen any facts about Microsoft hindering any software development, quite the contrary, thanks to Microsoft there's an enormous amount of developement and software we can chose from.

I would love to hear what companies as Sun, IBM and Oracle will say on the hearing, all just as big anti-interoperability as Microsoft in my book. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't IBM the worlds' #1 holder of Software patents, something that prevents development more than anything else. They could of course defend Microsoft, but I think they just see their chance to stab them.

"Microsoft had earlier asked the Commission to open the hearing. The Commission refused, saying such hearings were always held behind closed doors."
When you read things like that, you can only get suspicious about the real reasons behind it all, something that affects all those millions and it should be kept secret?

Now, the fine is supposed to because Microsoft is hurting rivals, how is providing the widest platform available hurting someone? Microsoft has done all the work, it's really just to reap the benefits. There is no rival against Microsoft on the OS market (talking about non-open source software) and as such, there's noone getting hurt. If some company would start up a serious OS project, then this could be of interest.

Microsoft could give up the entire company, all source code, and all the employees, EU would still say "not enough".

I'm not gonna deal with your whole post because I think KayossIII dealt with some of th epoitns better than I could. Here's what I think though:

"But think of it like this, is Microsoft really dictating our lives, or are we living them with how Microsoft think we want to live them? As I said in my previous post, Microsoft has no real power over the greater mass in how we choose our computing habit."

They do though, when they have a strategy of adopting a standard, expanding it and then overtaking it.
Look at their reluctance to adopt web standards as a prime example, or trying to force their own media file standards down people's throats.

What people want is easier, cheaper and more accesible computing - Microsoft are willing to provide that in as much as it's using their technology so they get to cream their profit out of it.
why else do you think they bundle Media Player with Windows as opposed to attempting to sell it as a product on it's own?


"Microsoft had earlier asked the Commission to open the hearing. The Commission refused, saying such hearings were always held behind closed doors."
When you read things like that, you can only get suspicious about the real reasons behind it all, something that affects all those millions and it should be kept secret?


That's the oldest trick in the book. The hearing is closed, as many hearings are, and Microsoft are fully aware of that. Calling for it to be "open" is just a bit of Microsoft spin to make the EU look like grubby backroom politicians.
If they want the hearing open, does that mean all of the relevant documents used in the hearing should be open, such as source code etc.?
Of course not.


Now, the fine is supposed to because Microsoft is hurting rivals, how is providing the widest platform available hurting someone? Microsoft has done all the work, it's really just to reap the benefits. There is no rival against Microsoft on the OS market (talking about non-open source software) and as such, there's noone getting hurt. If some company would start up a serious OS project, then this could be of interest.


Because Microsoft hold a monopoly. It's precisely because there is no major competitor that governments have to get involved.
If you stopped looking at the debate in terms of Microsoft's business interests and how they would be affected, and started looking at it in terms of Microsoft's business interests versus the interests of the citizens whos country they are doing businsess in, you might start to take a more balanced view.

I'll clarifiy for you: Microsoft are the dominant force in computing today, therefore they hve the ideal platform to strangle and stifle independant development before it gains a foothold.
You may see this as survival of the fittest, and open capitalism, which is fine - but many of us see this as a negative force that will go on to unbalance something that has become one of our most important infrastructures.

[tozz]

1. Windows is available without WMP, problem is that nobody could sell it as no _consumers_ wanted it.
2. Any version of Windows(2000,XP,2003) can be stripped of all (with some reservations) included Microsoft software, including Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player (all versions), Wordpad etc etc. This is done with _zero_ penalties for the end-user. It's really weird people really research into what you can't do instead of what you can do.

Without WMP bundled they would probably get sued for not making video playback available out of the box :rolleyes:

Well, Microsoft asked to have competitors out of the room while going through source code, this was denied by the courts, why do they even botter with source code if this is not what they wanted.

Computing today offers more choice, more availabily and stronger competition than it has ever done before, so I can't really agree with you. Oracle is getting switched for MySQL, Windows server platforms is getting switched for Unix or BSD, it's going slow, but it's at the terms of the _consumers_ and that's what you were asking for right?

[KayosIII]

1. Windows is available without WMP, problem is that nobody could sell it as no _consumers_ wanted it.
Presumably Consumers would be interested if it was at a lower price than other versions of windows. I think this was an attempt at opening the doors for OEMs to bundle other media players - I don't think thats going to happen.

2. Any version of Windows(2000,XP,2003) can be stripped of all (with some reservations) included Microsoft software, including Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player (all versions), Wordpad etc etc. This is done with _zero_ penalties for the end-user.

The keyword here is end-user. OEMs do not share this privelage and face severe penalties in their licensing rates from microsoft if they change the default installation in any way. The problem is that these rates are totally at Microsofts discression & that Microsofts pricing to the consumer is so dreadfully overpriced given the size of the market. I think that something like 80% of a copy of windows or Office is net profit to microsoft (thats total sales so the Consumer versions are going to be much worse than that). http://news.com.com/2100-1001-966219.html

It's really weird people really research into what you can't do instead of what you can do.

Without WMP bundled they would probably get sued for not making video playback available out of the box :rolleyes:

Well, Microsoft asked to have competitors out of the room while going through source code, this was denied by the courts, why do they even botter with source code if this is not what they wanted.

You are really going to have to post a link to that one... AFAIK THE EU HAS NEVER ASKED FOR MICROSOFTS SOURCE CODE. Microsoft offered the source code as a diversionary tactic - the EU turned them down. What the EU asked for is technical documentation on how various interfaces worked. Microsoft submitted documentation. The EU deemed the documentation unsatisfactory... The court case was investigating Microsofts business tactics not their code.

Computing today offers more choice, more availabily and stronger competition than it has ever done before, so I can't really agree with you. Oracle is getting switched for MySQL, Windows server platforms is getting switched for Unix or BSD, it's going slow, but it's at the terms of the _consumers_ and that's what you were asking for right?

Well that is neither here nor there - Open BSD/Unix was in the server market before Windows. Neither Oracle or MySQL belong to Microsoft nor effect this case in any way. But yes you are right change will be lead by the consumer. However Microsoft has effectively raised a barrier against other companies competing the marketplace and not all the tactics they have used to do this are strictly legal. There have been two cases in the US that basically came to the same conclusion's as this one.

[tozz]

The keyword here is end-user. OEMs do not share this privelage and face severe penalties in their licensing rates from microsoft if they change the default installation in any way. The problem is that these rates are totally at Microsofts discression & that Microsofts pricing to the consumer is so dreadfully overpriced given the size of the market. I think that something like 80% of a copy of windows or Office is net profit to microsoft (thats total sales so the Consumer versions are going to be much worse than that). http://news.com.com/2100-1001-966219.html
Are you talking about OEM sellers like Dell, HP etc? In that case it's lazyness that regulates you, not Microsoft.
Get computer, you get windows with it (on cd), reinstall windows the way you like it. It takes about 1h of preparation (Microsoft even supplies alot of tools for the process).

Why should a version without WMP be cheaper? Give me ONE good reason. WMP doesn't cost anything, why should it reduce the price of Windows then? Cost - 0 = Cost.

[shuggie]

WMP does cost something, it didn't just fall from the lap of the software gods into windows, there are people sat at desks coding for it, they have wages, they do this in a building which has to be lit, heated and filled with equipment, this all costs money. But these costs are subsumed into the total cost of windows, it isn't free.

If you buy windows then you're paying for windows media player even if you never use it, furthermore you're paying for a bunch of other applications which you may or may never use and we're forced to do this as MS don't provide a truely vanilla version of XP. We still get messenger, movie maker, ie and whole host of other applications foisted upon us.

There are lots of people who arent tech savvy who are happy to pay for a one stop shop OS, which is fine, MS should be able to offer such a product, but it should also offer a stripped down version, and pass the costs of the continous support and development of these apps onto the buyers.

[richcz3]

What happened to the version of Windows XP- N (http://news.com.com/Microsoft+updates+slimmed-down+Windows/2100-1016_3-5737415.html) that was released without Windows Media Player?

.....It BOMBED! SEE LINK > LINK1 (http://www.tweakxp.com/Article36585.aspx) | LINK2 (http://www.entmag.com/news/rss.asp?editorialsid=6972)

How many people that hate MS bought Windows XP-N?
MS haters hiding behind government mandates will stifle the company out of spite.

I laugh at the notion that governments know whats best for people. Yes they represent us, but unless a voting citizen is blind to Government bureaucracy and general technical incompetence, elected leaders are less suited to software and technology solutions.

[shuggie]

Windows XP-N wasn't any cheaper than XP standard, MS did not pass the cost benefit onto the customer, this effectively killed it. This is not proof that a core OS would not sell well if it were available and priced fairly.

To characterise people who object to MS business methods as spiteful and haters is pathetic, your right about governments, sure they don't know whats best for everyone, but I'd still trust them over MS.

[cbamber85]

It seemed that Microsoft almost delibrately tried to kill N to make the normal version of Windows XP look good. That's probably a naive interpretation but why else would they price it so high?

Also although I think that what the EU is doing is good for commerce, industry stability, etc., even I have to admit that the average consumer would rather buy the full version of Vista for £100 (if it ever comes, I'm starting to think it's an elaborate marketing ploy) than a cut-down version of it for £99.99 (because you know Microsoft will do that) plus a media player for £15 and then a anti-virus/system cleaner utility for another £40. I fear in the end the only losers will be us.

[richcz3]

Why should Windows XP-N be cheaper?
Microsoft now has a new Product to support.
The expense and associated marketing and packaging costs of producing it.
Who should pay for that?

Technicaly it could have cost more. I'm no programmer but I can bet MS didn't leave the job up to interns.

That and there was never the argument in removing Media Player to reduce cost. People were up in arms about being forced to use Media Player. (I know we all want to use Real Media Player :argh: )

There are groups that still want more features yanked from Windows so they can add their own. Internet Explorer anyone.
So before they are forced to remove it understand there will be no Price Reduction.
Will people Buy It? answer is Of course not.

[tozz]

I say it again, you can run Windows barebone, without IE and without WMP.

WMP is free for anyone, yes, people developed it, it's still free. Open sorce is developed by someone, it's also free. Removing open source software doesn't bring money from the sky.

Removing WMP from Windows = added work = added expenses = a product that according to the reasoning in here should add to the price, it didn't, and people didn't want it. WMP is probably benefitial for about 80% or so running windows, why should they give up that because the minority doesn't want it?

WMP is _NOT_ forced with Windows, it's user choice. And leaving the choice to the user is what we all want, is it not?

[Saurus]

I laugh at the notion that governments know whats best for people. Yes they represent us, but unless a voting citizen is blind to Government bureaucracy and general technical incompetence, elected leaders are less suited to software and technology solutions.

I agree...reason people are rioting in Paris...they don't agree with the current government policy.

[richcz3]

tozz - I'm not sure if you're in agreement with or not. Don't know where Open Source enters in WMP point though :shrug:

If people can disable WMP and IE as easily as you say then MS would not have had to produce and market a whole new version. It would have been so much easier for the OEM's to disable/remove the features in their product lines.

Of course, my point is - Just how many customers want to deal with Not having those features and finding replacements. I agree a very small percentage. So how marketable is this solution - Not very. so it hasn't done well.

[KayosIII]

Are you talking about OEM sellers like Dell, HP etc? In that case it's lazyness that regulates you, not Microsoft.
Get computer, you get windows with it (on cd), reinstall windows the way you like it. It takes about 1h of preparation (Microsoft even supplies alot of tools for the process).

Wow I think we are getting to the point. The problem is that Microsoft arbitrarily decides how much OEMs pay for their windows licenses. If Microsoft finds that an OEM has made changes to the stock installation of Windows that they don't approve of they can raise the price or deny access to stock as they see fit.

This is how the picture looked in 1998. Any changes would be due to previous legal action against microsoft.

26. Microsoft’s licenses required OEMs to install Windows only using Microsoft’s
OEM Preinstallation Kit (“OPK”), which wiped clean any operating systems already on the
computer hard disk and installed the Windows operating system, along with Microsoft’s boot
loader software, which could only be used to boot Windows.
27. Microsoft’s licenses also prohibited OEMs from deleting or altering any portion
of the Windows installation, without exception for the boot loader, once it had been placed on the hard disk by the OPK.
28. Microsoft’s licenses further prohibited alteration of the Windows startup sequence
once Windows had begun to boot.
29. Finally, Microsoft’s licenses prohibited the configuration of any portion of the
Windows system to facilitate the launch of any program to run prior to booting Windows.

(from BeOS vs Microsoft)
http://www.beincorporated.com/msft_complaint.pdf

Why should a version without WMP be cheaper? Give me ONE good reason. WMP doesn't cost anything, why should it reduce the price of Windows then? Cost - 0 = Cost.

The development costs of WMP are not zero. If Microsofts Pricing was in any way related to their development costs or WMP was not in a market where there was already good competition Microsoft would be charging extra (probably as part of a windows plus pack). If Microsoft wasn't trying to force compeditors out of the streaming server market they would already allow 3rd parties to stream through WMP (of course they would pay for access to tools).

[tozz]

Wow I think we are getting to the point. The problem is that Microsoft arbitrarily decides how much OEMs pay for their windows licenses. If Microsoft finds that an OEM has made changes to the stock installation of Windows that they don't approve of they can raise the price or deny access to stock as they see fit.

It's obvious you're not.
You get an Install CD with your computer, a windows cd to be precise. This disc is not regulated in any way (I have discs from Compaq and now HP, and Dell). So, once again, it's up to the user. OEM's really have nothing to do with it.

You're still not making any argument about why a WMPless install should be cheaper. How about making the version with WMP more expensive? That would make the one without it less expensive but would in the end result in a worse situation for the user.

[KayosIII]

It's obvious you're not.
You get an Install CD with your computer, a windows cd to be precise. This disc is not regulated in any way (I have discs from Compaq and now HP, and Dell). So, once again, it's up to the user. OEM's really have nothing to do with it.

Except this requires a certain degree of familiarity and technical aptitude which believe it or not the majority of people do not possess. Not having this stuff available from OEMs is a significant & artificial barrier of entry to Microsoft's Compeditors.

You're still not making any argument about why a WMPless install should be cheaper.

You missed what I was trying to say. Without a price differentiation most consumers are not going to care.

How about making the version with WMP more expensive? That would make the one without it less expensive but would in the end result in a worse situation for the user.

Well that shouldn't be a problem because there are plenty of good free media players out there. All you have to do is go and install one of them yourself. :p (if you disagree with me on this one you are going to have to agree on my first point - so make up your mind)

[KayosIII]

There once was a company that made cars - for better or worse they were makers of 90% of the cars in the world. One day they decided that they would also make radio transmitters.

This is what they did they fitted every one of there cars standard with a radio... This radio could only tune to radio transmitters the company made. They did not tell the people who bought the car this and because lots of people bought the cars the radio stations either had to have two transmitters or just service the people who had the manufacturers car. Since it was expensive to maintain two radio transmitters most radio stations opted for the second option. This drove other radio transmitter builders out of business and those people who had bought other cars could no longer listen to the radio.

While it is true that people could choose to put a second radio in their car, most people did not because everything appeared to work fine for them and having two radios is messy. Anyways the other radios became pretty useless after a while because nobody was transmitting to them.

At least that is what would have happened except the government didn't think this was fair. So the Government asked for two things. 1) ship cars without a radio if the customers asked for it. 2) Provide documentation to allow other radio transmitter companies to make transmitters that could broadcast to the car radios of the big company.

[tozz]

Well that shouldn't be a problem because there are plenty of good free media players out there. All you have to do is go and install one of them yourself. :p (if you disagree with me on this one you are going to have to agree on my first point - so make up your mind)
"Except this requires a certain degree of familiarity and technical aptitude which believe it or not the majority of people do not possess."
So either they get a windows version without wmp and learn how to configure a media player. Or they get any windows cd and use wmp. See, there's plenty of choice. Or should Microsoft be forced to include every other Mediaplayer on the marked just to "make it fair for them"?

In the computer buisness there's one fact. Make crap and you're out. Doesn't really matter in what area.

As for the whole radio analogy, WMP doesn't stop any other software, it's not required (to be in the car) and the few (very few) WMV streams out there are probably there because they actually need the format, not because they were forced to.

[richcz3]

...In the computer buisness there's one fact. Make crap and you're out. Doesn't really matter in what area...
That is for sure.
I keep in mind that all this government intervention will ultimately do less for the consumer. Unfortunately all these political monkey wreched solutions will probably end up costing the consumer more in the long run.

Buying an integrated packaged deal has been and always should be less expensive than buying component by component.

[KayosIII]

So either they get a windows version without wmp and learn how to configure a media player. Or they get any windows cd and use wmp. See, there's plenty of choice. Or should Microsoft be forced to include every other Mediaplayer on the marked just to "make it fair for them"?

If you do not possess the technical skills you have no choice. The Microsoft path is easier by artificial means. It would be better for the consumer if OEMs could install other media players instead of or along side and give the customer the same ease of use they get with wmp. Currently MS can effectively stop that from happening.

In the computer buisness there's one fact. Make crap and you're out. Doesn't really matter in what area.

If that were so microsoft would be dead 10 times over by now. Things are pretty good now - but 10-15 years ago, windows lets face it was crap, of course most people hadn't used anything else and assumed that computers were crap....

As for the whole radio analogy, WMP doesn't stop any other software,
in my analogy I said customers were free to install a second radio in there car, nor did I say that they couldn't remove it. In truth most of the customers didn't even know that something was wrong.

[tozz]

If you do not possess the technical skills you have no choice. The Microsoft path is easier by artificial means. It would be better for the consumer if OEMs could install other media players instead of or along side and give the customer the same ease of use they get with wmp. Currently MS can effectively stop that from happening.



If that were so microsoft would be dead 10 times over by now. Things are pretty good now - but 10-15 years ago, windows lets face it was crap, of course most people hadn't used anything else and assumed that computers were crap....


in my analogy I said customers were free to install a second radio in there car, nor did I say that they couldn't remove it. In truth most of the customers didn't even know that something was wrong.
Good doesn't just mean technical, it means marketing and user appeal. Compare how Microsoft marketed Windows compared to OS/2. Was there even any OS/2 marketing. IBM tried to go with "we're the best" but without anything to back it up they fell hard. OS/2 Was great, as a shell, because there wasn't much to put into it.

You're free to install a player in windows, and to remove the existing one. So again, no argument. Would it be better if they put a red sticker saying "Alot of people on the internet think our mediaplayer suck, please download another one?". I say it should be up to consumers to think for themself, not the companies.

[zukezuko]

microsoft blah bla blah blah blah microsoft blah bla blah blah sucks bla bla
blah bla bla so what do we care bla bla blah bla blah blah blah bla blah blah
for all i know xsi on linux runs 30%faster than on xp and propably 60% than on Vista

[mynewcat]

microsoft blah bla blah blah blah microsoft blah bla blah blah sucks bla bla
blah bla bla so what do we care bla bla blah bla blah blah blah bla blah blah
for all i know xsi on linux runs 30%faster than on xp and propably 60% than on Vista

Wow, insightful comments there Zukezuko... you're right what do we care? It's not as if any of us might be professionals who end up using operating system software all our working days and in our own time as well. :cry:
Why on Earth would we be interested in the nuances of anything so boring as that!? :banghead:

And thanks for those useful comments regarding your wild guesses as to the relative efficiencies of one OS versus another.
You know, that information is useful because speed increases can almost directly be translated into time and money savings! (YAWN!) :drool:

Incidentally... is there any danger you might like to share your age with the rest of the group? I sometimes find it's useful information, along with professional background and past history of comments when I weigh up the relative merits of someone's arguments. :wavey:

Cheers <LOL>

[zukezuko]

i am sorry HAL for that post
its just when i read microsoft so many times it gets on my nerves

[Grim Beefer]

I would like to qualify my following statements with the fact that I live in the United States, and I hereby apologize in advance for any naiveté concerning international law.

There is little doubt that Microsoft, as a corporate entity, generates massive profits; furthermore there is little doubt that Windows is the dominant operating system currently in use. In the United States, we have tolerated monopolies so long as the price/value ratio of such a given institution was deemed to be greater than the potential damage incurred by such a firm, a seemingly rational cost/benefit analysis. A great example would be AT&T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T), which was granted de jure monopolistic power by the United States government under the assumption that it was a natural monopoly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly) until the Reagan administration facilitated the birth of the “baby Bells”. Some arguments here claim that if Microsoft has a monopoly, it is an efficiency monopoly - in other words they are satisfying consumer demand so well that profitable competition is extremely challenging. I would flat out reject this premise on the grounds that consumers currently have little possibilty for deviance.

First off, an operating system is an unprecedented product, and we must strive to avoid insolent reactionary stances in dealing with systems such as Microsoft Windows.
I think it would be agreed that, practically speaking, Windows does very little on its own (a blank slate analogy would fit well here). We can make similar claims about the computer hardware itself, the multitude of networks comprising the Internet, or even something more tangential, such as city streets or a sewage system. Thus it is not just infrastructure, but also application that we must allow into this analysis. But unlike any manufacturing supporters of the x86 architecture standard, Microsoft is the ultimate profiteer of the Windows infrastructure. This analogy is crucial to understanding the manifest power of Microsoft.

Any complex humanistic system, such as launguage, will benefit in efficiency from agreed standards in proportion to a loss in cultural (i.e. aesthetic) diversity. So when the exigencies of economics outweigh the superstructure benefits of diversity, we will see civilization gravitate towards a universal standard. Language is not a perfect example; we deviate from the officially observed “rules of grammar” in proportion to our cultural influences; but of course there is a high threshold of understanding and reasoning that we as humans posses to overcome unfamiliar colloquialisms. A computing language, on the other hand, has no syntactical threshold for obvious reasons; thus it would be very surprising to find purely aesthetic elements of a programming language that weren’t pragmatic.

If you are following my argument, then you will see that I perceive the dominance of Windows as being facilitated by our need to adopt standards when economics are the crucial factor. I would furthermore posit that the adoption of standards itself is tantamount to the level of institutionalization present in a given case. I think those common institutions, such as bureaucracy, the military, and the corpus of law all showcase this effect prominently. Now this is not to say that standards are eternal, certainly nothing is further from the truth. Obviously standards such as languages (etymology for example), governments, and the laws of science (perhaps the epitome of systematic institutionalization) are not lacking in variation. But what is important is that in these examples, concurrent inter-variation is peremptorily bound by the economic/cultural balance proposed earlier (or said variation is itself determined by agreed upon standards, which would describe individual state power, for example).

This would help explain why there is currently some inter-variation of operating systems, but Windows dominates by far – despite lacking any decisive advantages over competition other than installed user base (I understand that this is a spurious assertion, but I do feel that it is justified). At this point I would point out a major logical inconsistency with many thus far, and that is the statement that Windows must be the best operating system because it is the one that is used the most. Indeed, this statement reveals one of the oldest logical pitfalls recorded (as eloquently described in Plato’s Euthyphro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthypro), see Point 3), and some slight thinking into this subject will reveal that it is a rhetorical tautology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29). Compare this with the controversy over the canonical standard of teaching enamored with DWEM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_white_males) (Dead White European Males); critics will maintain that we emphasize Western civilization in education simply because its dominance insures that it is what we know best. Just as we can explain the rise of Western civilization using explanatory models that deemphasize inherent superiority (see Jared Diamond’s excellent Guns, Germs, and Steel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel)), we can easily chalk up Microsoft’s meteoric rise to surfeit grotesqueness to environmental circumstances. It is obvious in documentary record that Microsoft was not terribly innovative (or ethical for that matter), and were simply the first lucky enough to figure out how to get past the finish line; keeping in mind that this is no new phenomenon - Alexander Graham Bell beat out a rival for the patent of the telephone by a mere two hours (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone), and he was one of many to independently “invent” the telephone (see the above statements on AT&T). Thus we can differentiate the statements that Microsoft deserves to have an approximate 90% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows) of the client based operating system market from a mere assertion of this quality based on the rational moral neutrality of chance. Microsoft’s dominance will be necessitated and reinforced by the enormous imbalance of available software geared towards the Windows operating system, much like dependency upon telephone wire networks catapulted AT&T into a virtual monopoly (you can also compare the railroad industry in this case, or Comcast).

Unlike AT&T, however, Microsoft has no defense of a natural monopoly. It is certainly possible to engineer an alternative operating system that could potentially flourish using the x86 standard, right? This may be ultimately true, but one would be foolish to deny that the current land rush of software patents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent) is primarily pursued to prevent the possibility of just such a thing from happening. In a recent interview (http://www.forbes.com/home/enterprisetech/2006/03/22/ballmer-microsoft-linux-cz_df_0322microsoft.html), Steve Ballmer stated that “Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property”, and did not dismiss the possibility of pursuing legal action against Linux. Here you see the crucial conflict that Microsoft germinates within us; namely that Windows is useful as a necessary standard, but Microsoft is destructive as an institution. Windows is not just a mere “product”, but an essential component for the interlocking of our global economy. Unlike some other essential commodities, like steel or oil, Windows is also consistent entirely of intellectual property. Ceding that the standard of computing systems is tantamount to other essential technological standards (like electrical systems, agricultural systems, etc.) we then have evidence for the claim that Microsoft is essentially authoritarian in practice and effect, a effulgent exemplar of what Noam Chomsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky) commonly refers to as “unaccountable private tyranny”. What Microsoft represents is the privatization of a now essential economic commodity; with absolutely no pretense of ethical consideration for the common good being evident (as we generally demand from our crucial commodities, and find ourselves in trouble with right now concerning pharmaceuticals). This is similar to the way that authoritarian regimes may resolve crucial state problems such as health and sanitation, but nevertheless we abhor them on general principle. The EU effort to curtail this “unaccountable” aspect is not only justified, but in my opinion, far too lax.

[KayosIII]

Wow that took some writing - I couldn't have said it better myself.

[theCloudmover]

I would like to qualify my following statements with the fact that I live in the United States, and I hereby apologize in advance for any naiveté concerning international law.

etc., etc.


That was the smartest, most coherent post I've ever read on this board. I felt like I was back at school.

[ndat]

It would be funny if they just decided not to sell windows in Europe.

[LiquidMetal]

Wow,I had to look up some words on Google just to finish that post and understand it.You are my hero.It would be nice to have more options in choosing an operating system instead of the 3 or 4 now, but it would be such an up-hill battle for the competitors.

It would be funny if they just decided not to sell windows in Europe.

And then there stocks skyrocketted.

[paintbox]

That was the smartest, most coherent post I've ever read on this board. I felt like I was back at school.

Quoted for agreement.

[ShadowHunter]

...
I could not disagree more. First allow me to humbly recommend following George Orwell's six rules to effectively cut the above in half and to entertain a greater audience.

Windows dominates by far – despite lacking any decisive advantages over competition other than installed user base (I understand that this is a spurious assertion, but I do feel that it is justified).
Secondly, I would like to hear your justification of the above. What kind of advantages are we talking about here? The fact that as an OS, Windows' features are easily matched by the competition? Or the fact that Windows entertains the largest software base, developer & support base and as a result: end user base. The latter is far more important than the former and has contributed to Microsoft's success more than anything else. How many times have you read someone write "I would like to switch from my Windows box to ____, if only it had software _____"? While there certainly is an increasing amount of alternatives for many Windows applications in other OSes (in particular Linux), it is still for the most part a one way route; that is "Does Linux have an alternative to this Windows application?" rather than the reverse.

Most of Microsoft's investment has gone into supporting developers (recall Ballmer jumping up and down repeatedly yelling "developers"). And that is the precise function of an Operating System: to lay down the foundation on top of which developers can build solutions to all problems imaginable. Reusing one of your analogies: "If you have a marvelously engineered sewer but no sewage actually flows through it, then what’s its use?". Like it or not Microsoft has invested in the right people. The payoff has been the largest amount of solutions available to the user exclusively through this particular operating system. In that respect Windows is unparalleled, and worth more than a mere "they were lucky to be the first to get past the finish line".

I will not comment on my views of "monopolies" as that would entail going into my views on politics which this forum prohibits. Keep in mind that Microsoft practices the same business strategies as many other software companies including our beloved Google and Apple (both are monopolies in search and online music distribution respectively). Yet the EU singled Microsoft out in their court case, when other corporations are "guilty" of similar "offenses".

"Business ethics" is an oxymoron. Do not expect more than that. I better stop here. I would love to hear your argument in defense :)

[mummey]

I would like to qualify my following statements with the fact that I live in the United States, and I hereby apologize in advance for any naiveté concerning international law.

There is little doubt that Microsoft, as a corporate entity, generates massive profits; furthermore there is little doubt that Windows is the dominant operating system currently in use. In the United States, we have tolerated monopolies so long as the price/value ratio of such a given institution was deemed to be greater than the potential damage incurred by such a firm, a seemingly rational cost/benefit analysis. A great example would be AT&T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T), which was granted de jure monopolistic power by the United States government under the assumption that it was a natural monopoly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly) until the Reagan administration facilitated the birth of the “baby Bells”. Some arguments here claim that if Microsoft has a monopoly, it is an efficiency monopoly - in other words they are satisfying consumer demand so well that profitable competition is extremely challenging. I would flat out reject this premise on the grounds that consumers currently have little possibilty for deviance.

First off, an operating system is an unprecedented product, and we must strive to avoid insolent reactionary stances in dealing with systems such as Microsoft Windows.
I think it would be agreed that, practically speaking, Windows does very little on its own (a blank slate analogy would fit well here). We can make similar claims about the computer hardware itself, the multitude of networks comprising the Internet, or even something more tangential, such as city streets or a sewage system. Thus it is not just infrastructure, but also application that we must allow into this analysis. But unlike any manufacturing supporters of the x86 architecture standard, Microsoft is the ultimate profiteer of the Windows infrastructure. This analogy is crucial to understanding the manifest power of Microsoft.

Any complex humanistic system, such as launguage, will benefit in efficiency from agreed standards in proportion to a loss in cultural (i.e. aesthetic) diversity. So when the exigencies of economics outweigh the superstructure benefits of diversity, we will see civilization gravitate towards a universal standard. Language is not a perfect example; we deviate from the officially observed “rules of grammar” in proportion to our cultural influences; but of course there is a high threshold of understanding and reasoning that we as humans posses to overcome unfamiliar colloquialisms. A computing language, on the other hand, has no syntactical threshold for obvious reasons; thus it would be very surprising to find purely aesthetic elements of a programming language that weren’t pragmatic.

If you are following my argument, then you will see that I perceive the dominance of Windows as being facilitated by our need to adopt standards when economics are the crucial factor. I would furthermore posit that the adoption of standards itself is tantamount to the level of institutionalization present in a given case. I think those common institutions, such as bureaucracy, the military, and the corpus of law all showcase this effect prominently. Now this is not to say that standards are eternal, certainly nothing is further from the truth. Obviously standards such as languages (etymology for example), governments, and the laws of science (perhaps the epitome of systematic institutionalization) are not lacking in variation. But what is important is that in these examples, concurrent inter-variation is peremptorily bound by the economic/cultural balance proposed earlier (or said variation is itself determined by agreed upon standards, which would describe individual state power, for example).

This would help explain why there is currently some inter-variation of operating systems, but Windows dominates by far – despite lacking any decisive advantages over competition other than installed user base (I understand that this is a spurious assertion, but I do feel that it is justified). At this point I would point out a major logical inconsistency with many thus far, and that is the statement that Windows must be the best operating system because it is the one that is used the most. Indeed, this statement reveals one of the oldest logical pitfalls recorded (as eloquently described in Plato’s Euthyphro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthypro), see Point 3), and some slight thinking into this subject will reveal that it is a rhetorical tautology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29). Compare this with the controversy over the canonical standard of teaching enamored with DWEM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_white_males) (Dead White European Males); critics will maintain that we emphasize Western civilization in education simply because its dominance insures that it is what we know best. Just as we can explain the rise of Western civilization using explanatory models that deemphasize inherent superiority (see Jared Diamond’s excellent Guns, Germs, and Steel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel)), we can easily chalk up Microsoft’s meteoric rise to surfeit grotesqueness to environmental circumstances. It is obvious in documentary record that Microsoft was not terribly innovative (or ethical for that matter), and were simply the first lucky enough to figure out how to get past the finish line; keeping in mind that this is no new phenomenon - Alexander Graham Bell beat out a rival for the patent of the telephone by a mere two hours (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone), and he was one of many to independently “invent” the telephone (see the above statements on AT&T). Thus we can differentiate the statements that Microsoft deserves to have an approximate 90% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows) of the client based operating system market from a mere assertion of this quality based on the rational moral neutrality of chance. Microsoft’s dominance will be necessitated and reinforced by the enormous imbalance of available software geared towards the Windows operating system, much like dependency upon telephone wire networks catapulted AT&T into a virtual monopoly (you can also compare the railroad industry in this case, or Comcast).

Unlike AT&T, however, Microsoft has no defense of a natural monopoly. It is certainly possible to engineer an alternative operating system that could potentially flourish using the x86 standard, right? This may be ultimately true, but one would be foolish to deny that the current land rush of software patents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent) is primarily pursued to prevent the possibility of just such a thing from happening. In a recent interview (http://www.forbes.com/home/enterprisetech/2006/03/22/ballmer-microsoft-linux-cz_df_0322microsoft.html), Steve Ballmer stated that “Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property”, and did not dismiss the possibility of pursuing legal action against Linux. Here you see the crucial conflict that Microsoft germinates within us; namely that Windows is useful as a necessary standard, but Microsoft is destructive as an institution. Windows is not just a mere “product”, but an essential component for the interlocking of our global economy. Unlike some other essential commodities, like steel or oil, Windows is also consistent entirely of intellectual property. Ceding that the standard of computing systems is tantamount to other essential technological standards (like electrical systems, agricultural systems, etc.) we then have evidence for the claim that Microsoft is essentially authoritarian in practice and effect, a effulgent exemplar of what Noam Chomsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky) commonly refers to as “unaccountable private tyranny”. What Microsoft represents is the privatization of a now essential economic commodity; with absolutely no pretense of ethical consideration for the common good being evident (as we generally demand from our crucial commodities, and find ourselves in trouble with right now concerning pharmaceuticals). This is similar to the way that authoritarian regimes may resolve crucial state problems such as health and sanitation, but nevertheless we abhor them on general principle. The EU effort to curtail this “unaccountable” aspect is not only justified, but in my opinion, far too lax.

Quoted to set an example what a 'rant' _should_ be. If you're going to make that long of a post, then you better make it as understandable, unbiased, and informative as possible. I actually READ this whole post!!!

[Albius]

In response to ShadowHunter:
Unless I completely misunderstood Grim Beefer's post, I think his point was that Windows, being a crucial foundation or infrastructure for 90% of the world's computers, is too important to be exclusively under the control of a single large company.

[parallax]

In response to ShadowHunter:
Unless I completely misunderstood Grim Beefer's post, I think his point was that Windows, being a crucial foundation or infrastructure for 90% of the world's computers, is too important to be exclusively under the control of a single large company.


Exactly. (ten characters+)

[hundredthirtyseven]

I'd rather say that a big company like Microsoft has a lot of power that we (the people) can't control. And history already showed us that is going to kick back.

[tozz]

In response to ShadowHunter:
Unless I completely misunderstood Grim Beefer's post, I think his point was that Windows, being a crucial foundation or infrastructure for 90% of the world's computers, is too important to be exclusively under the control of a single large company.
So what you're suggesting is that Microsoft throw in the towel and say "Hey, we did good, now let's end it while on top". Take anything in society that's important and it will be controled by a single entity, from telephones, to water, to electricity etc.

In the EU case, it's Microsoft who will have to pay for the stupidity of others, they haven't forced anything, it's the average joe who wanted to feel comfortable. Now, sure, we could punish Microsoft for making joe feel comfortable, but that says more about the ones suing than it does about Microsoft.

Then we have the funny posts about "let's make a hundred OS'es and everyone have plenty to choose from".. Yeah, that sounds good... :rolleyes:
If this was suggested 10years ago it would be worthwhile, now there's plenty of systems, good ones, all with a solid software bases available for everyone.

Btw, Firefox just took 10% of the browser market, in a very short period of time, that if something should say how loose control Microsoft has over the computer world, they're in for a huge change, and it's not because people are suing them, it's because they've lost the touch (or the competitors have woken up and realised something needed to be done). This isn't just happening in the browser market, it's everywhere. Stay and enjoy the downfall. :cool:

[hundredthirtyseven]

So what you're suggesting is that Microsoft throw in the towel and say "Hey, we did good, now let's end it while on top". Take anything in society that's important and it will be controled by a single entity, from telephones, to water, to electricity etc.

In the EU case, it's Microsoft who will have to pay for the stupidity of others, they haven't forced anything, it's the average joe who wanted to feel comfortable. Now, sure, we could punish Microsoft for making joe feel comfortable, but that says more about the ones suing than it does about Microsoft.

Then we have the funny posts about "let's make a hundred OS'es and everyone have plenty to choose from".. Yeah, that sounds good... :rolleyes:
If this was suggested 10years ago it would be worthwhile, now there's plenty of systems, good ones, all with a solid software bases available for everyone.

Btw, Firefox just took 10% of the browser market, in a very short period of time, that if something should say how loose control Microsoft has over the computer world, they're in for a huge change, and it's not because people are suing them, it's because they've lost the touch (or the competitors have woken up and realised something needed to be done). This isn't just happening in the browser market, it's everywhere. Stay and enjoy the downfall. :cool:

"Blinded by the light...ooo...blinded by the liiiiiggghtt":)

[zukezuko]

" Stay and enjoy the downfall.:cool: "

word

[KayosIII]

In the EU case, it's Microsoft who will have to pay for the stupidity of others, they haven't forced anything.
Two quite heavy investigations from the US government and one from the EU disagree with you. This is something you don't seem to be able to accept. Microsoft have used several tactics to FORCE the current situation. (look through my previous posts I have explained them enough times here).

As for numbers of operating systems - It doesn't matter how many of them their are as long as they interoperate nicely with each other.

[tozz]

Two quite heavy investigations from the US government and one from the EU disagree with you. This is something you don't seem to be able to accept. Microsoft have used several tactics to FORCE the current situation. (look through my previous posts I have explained them enough times here).

As for numbers of operating systems - It doesn't matter how many of them their are as long as they interoperate nicely with each other.
I've yet to see any proof to your "explenations". Well except the OEM case from 1998 that you had no followup on, and really has nothing to with server inoperability.
Then you had the car stereo case which had nothing to do with Windows since WMP isn't a forced option. You could drive it to the WMV format, but that's in such a minority so I guess it's not interesting.
As for the EU hearing one can only laugh, it's one criminal judging another (IBM, Sun, Oracle are supposed to be objective on Microsoft, truly you must be joking). As for the US cases, I didn't even know anything happened as a result of them, well exept for the WMP fiasco they soo badly wanted.

And then there's the whole "Big powers must be right when they judge others" (You should've heard the EU when they decided (or rather didn't) on the economics). But that's really too much of politics, and as such has nothing to do on this forum.

[ShadowHunter]

In response to ShadowHunter:
Unless I completely misunderstood Grim Beefer's post, I think his point was that Windows, being a crucial foundation or infrastructure for 90% of the world's computers, is too important to be exclusively under the control of a single large company.
Oh I am well aware, but as I stated in my second to last paragraph I will not address my views on monopolies as that involves too much politics. I could construct what in my opinion is a convincing argument that is, shall we say, less favourable towards the EU than Grim Beefer's.

My response was addressing the particular line I quoted, nothing more than that.

Let's just say that if you truly believe that Windows should not be solely under the control of the original creator, then why should Google or iTunes or the numerous other monopolies existing today? Face it we are living in a capitalist environment, you can't inject other paradigms without going all the way. Why stop at Microsoft? Once we get down that slippery slope there's no knowing where we might end up. I am surprised though how on the one hand people are afraid of governmental control (e.g. trusted computing, DRM, rating regulation and enforcement) yet on the other hand are very supportive of giving away privatization. The workers at Microsoft are just like you, the company is just like any other company (and not the only one holding a slipping monopoly).

The consumer has a choice (in this case 2 major alternatives) and he should be the one to decide the fate of Microsoft. Fair enough? :shrug:

P.S: I tried to stay away from politics, though if I have crossed any lines the mods are welcome to remove this.

[tozz]

*
Quoted for agreement (but removed to keep the forums clean) :)

[arquebus]

It would be funny if they just decided not to sell windows in Europe.
Funny?? It would be the best thing that ever happened to the european software industry. Linux would become mainstream overnight, new experimental OSes would be developed, Mac would become a serious alternative. Cutting the MS cord is idea should be taken a little more seriously.

[tozz]

Funny?? It would be the best thing that ever happened to the european software industry. Linux would become mainstream overnight, new experimental OSes would be developed, Mac would become a serious alternative. Cutting the MS cord is idea should be taken a little more seriously.
Or rather we'd be back in the stoneage for about 5years while the computer user base would have to be reeducated, as would the support people on every single company. Not to mention the entire software library having to be ported and upgraded to fit into new OS'es (probably multiple versions cause of difference in OS structure).
Then after five years it would be all nice and dandy, then 5years after that we're discussing another company who has 80% userbase and being sued and someone sugests they should stop selling stuff in EU (I do hower believe EU will cease to exist before that).

[Albius]

In response to ShadowHunter: Ah, politics; sorry about that. (Does economics without reference to specific politicians count?)

So what you're suggesting is that Microsoft throw in the towel and say "Hey, we did good, now let's end it while on top". Take anything in society that's important and it will be controled by a single entity, from telephones, to water, to electricity etc.

In the EU case, it's Microsoft who will have to pay for the stupidity of others, they haven't forced anything, it's the average joe who wanted to feel comfortable. Now, sure, we could punish Microsoft for making joe feel comfortable, but that says more about the ones suing than it does about Microsoft.

Then we have the funny posts about "let's make a hundred OS'es and everyone have plenty to choose from".. Yeah, that sounds good... :rolleyes:
If this was suggested 10years ago it would be worthwhile, now there's plenty of systems, good ones, all with a solid software bases available for everyone.

Btw, Firefox just took 10% of the browser market, in a very short period of time, that if something should say how loose control Microsoft has over the computer world, they're in for a huge change, and it's not because people are suing them, it's because they've lost the touch (or the competitors have woken up and realised something needed to be done). This isn't just happening in the browser market, it's everywhere. Stay and enjoy the downfall. :cool:

Well, I think the problem is simply that if Microsoft acts in a corrupt way, it could cause a lot of damage. A more obviously dangerous analogy would be if a single company had control of 90% of the world's oil. Honestly, I don't know how this could be avoided- perhaps if several companies had control of competing but mutually compatible distributions of Windows- and if they were all open source.

On the other hand, ShadowHunter's point that too much government regulation of companies would set a dangerous precedent could also be valid, especially in such a high-profile case.

[arquebus]

Or rather we'd be back in the stoneage for about 5years while the computer user base would have to be reeducated, as would the support people on every single company. Not to mention the entire software library having to be ported and upgraded to fit into new OS'es (probably multiple versions cause of difference in OS structure).
Then after five years it would be all nice and dandy, then 5years after that we're discussing another company who has 80% userbase and being sued and someone sugests they should stop selling stuff in EU (I do hower believe EU will cease to exist before that).
All it would take is just a little forethought on the part of the EU to create OS standards by which all OSes would have to adhere. Thats what governments are for, to create rules and standards which the industry must follow. And since Linux is open source, it would be very plyable to fit these standards, commercial OSes would quickly follow suit. That would eliminate MS or any other company from ever taking a monopolistic hold on a standard that should be public domain. It really comes down to whether the EU wants to be a follower and keep playing these whining games with MS or do they want to be a leader and take control of their own software industry.

[tozz]

All it would take is just a little forethought on the part of the EU to create OS standards by which all OSes would have to adhere. Thats what governments are for, to create rules and standards which the industry must follow. And since Linux is open source, it would be very plyable to fit these standards, commercial OSes would quickly follow suit. That would eliminate MS or any other company from ever taking a monopolistic hold on a standard that should be public domain. It really comes down to whether the EU wants to be a follower and keep playing these whining games with MS or do they want to be a leader and take control of their own software industry.
You must clearly be joking, you seriously want your computer habits to be controled by a crowd of 50+? And you say Microsoft is dictating?
Why would Linux be suitable? Just look how a simple thing as installation of software differs between distributions, and how some follow one path and others another (I have nothing against Linux, I love it, but saying it's the solution to OS interoperability seems very far fetched). Standards are good when applied in correct doses, forcing people to work one way or another isn't gonna help anyone.

I actually fear a OS specification by the EU, consider some of the laws that has been passed here recently.

[KayosIII]

I've yet to see any proof to your "explenations". Well except the OEM case from 1998 that you had no followup on, and really has nothing to with server inoperability. perhaps you deemed it unnessesary to look through the charges and findings of the most recent US Anti-trust trial I posted. While not strictly a server case, it deals with components that have to operate with windows clients and the business practices under scrutiny are virtually the same.

Then you had the car stereo case which had nothing to do with Windows since WMP isn't a forced option. You could drive it to the WMV format, but that's in such a minority so I guess it's not interesting.

In my analogy I never said WMP was a forced option in fact I explained that it was not - go back and read it again every time you refer to it you misquote it.


As for the EU hearing one can only laugh, it's one criminal judging another (IBM, Sun, Oracle are supposed to be objective on Microsoft, truly you must be joking).

Its a court case, IBM, Sun and Oracle the Plaintiffs, the EU is the Prosecutor, Microsoft the defendant. The people doing the Judging are the court system which is what they do. [please, please post a link that tells me I am wrong here].


As for the US cases, I didn't even know anything happened as a result of them, well exept for the WMP fiasco they soo badly wanted.

Ok firstly WMP has nothing to do with either of the US Cases. Secondly here are the results of the most recent, US Case. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm#settlement
and for convienience
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

And then there's the whole "Big powers must be right when they judge others"
The big powers don't judge others - they take the prosecution on court cases. The trail is conducted by the court system. If there is a party playing dirty in the courtrooms it is Microsoft http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/02/02/doj_skewers_ms_exec_over/ (I removed IE from windows 98 myself and suffered no speed penalties or crashes) . but again please please send a link prooving me wrong.

(You should've heard the EU when they decided (or rather didn't) on the economics). But that's really too much of politics, and as such has nothing to do on this forum.
Well actually the economics is a big part of why the DOJ and (presumably) the EU took these cases. The advantages of Capitolism take a walk when there is no effective competition.

[KayosIII]

Let's just say that if you truly believe that Windows should not be solely under the control of the original creator, then why should Google or iTunes or the numerous other monopolies existing today? Face it we are living in a capitalist environment, you can't inject other paradigms without going all the way. Why stop at Microsoft? Once we get down that slippery slope there's no knowing where we might end up.

Nobody is prosecuting anybody for having a monopoly. The prosecution is about using one monopoly to generate another.

I am surprised though how on the one hand people are afraid of governmental control (e.g. trusted computing, DRM, rating regulation and enforcement) yet on the other hand are very supportive of giving away privatization. The workers at Microsoft are just like you, the company is just like any other company (and not the only one holding a slipping monopoly).
(firstly) That is because people are even less trustful of corperations then they are of governments - at least governments have some form of built in accountability.
(secondly) trusted computing, DRM, Rating regulation etc aren't really being driven by governments, they are being driven by large companies in the technology and entertainment fields, these companies are using the court system and lobbying governments to make these changes.

The consumer has a choice (in this case 2 major alternatives) and he should be the one to decide the fate of Microsoft. Fair enough? :shrug:

In most cases the consumer does not have an *effective* choice or at least believe they do not. I think it was Tozz who said something about the eu going back to the stoneage for 5 years while systems are migrated over... There were a lot of people in my own country that tried to jump ship when Microsoft tripled the price of its quality assurance licensing. But found they couldn't because for instance that all their critical business information was stored in a proprietory Access database. This is a phenominon known as vendor lock-in..

[tozz]

Its a court case, IBM, Sun and Oracle the Plaintiffs, the EU is the Prosecutor, Microsoft the defendant. The people doing the Judging are the court system which is what they do. [please, please post a link that tells me I am wrong here].

The big powers don't judge others - they take the prosecution on court cases. The trail is conducted by the court system. If there is a party playing dirty in the courtrooms it is Microsoft http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/02/02/doj_skewers_ms_exec_over/ (I removed IE from windows 98 myself and suffered no speed penalties or crashes) . but again please please send a link prooving me wrong.

Well actually the economics is a big part of why the DOJ and (presumably) the EU took these cases. The advantages of Capitolism take a walk when there is no effective competition.

--

In most cases the consumer does not have an *effective* choice or at least believe they do not. I think it was Tozz who said something about the eu going back to the stoneage for 5 years while systems are migrated over... There were a lot of people in my own country that tried to jump ship when Microsoft tripled the price of its quality assurance licensing. But found they couldn't because for instance that all their critical business information was stored in a proprietory Access database. This is a phenominon known as vendor lock-in..

(secondly) trusted computing, DRM, Rating regulation etc aren't really being driven by governments, they are being driven by large companies in the technology and entertainment fields, these companies are using the court system and lobbying governments to make these changes.

EU is the prosecutor and judge, a nice combination I might add. EU is also the big power taking Microsoft to court. IBM and CO isn't the plaintiffs, they're just there backing up EU with some other software companies.

There's some nice points in the document link you posted, most irrelevant and some right out stupid and anti-consumer. It's however over 6years old and it would be far more interesting seeing the market today. The fact that Intel complains over Microsoft OEM handling and then heads out doing the same thing, and then adds a little spice, should say enough.

Then you have to wonder why the US Gov. makes a visit just to make sure EU is handling the case correctly, it's looking more and more like a power struggle than a consumer related case.

Edit (added quote from later post)
You're describing a CONSUMER lock-in, they decided on Access, they decided on Microsoft. There was plenty of options, they went for the flashy and costly. Please prove that Access was the only option they could choose before you're blaming Microsoft for having their own format for a database (as alot of other applications have).

Governments pass the laws making DRM possible, hence, they are the single responsible entity.

[KayosIII]

Ok looks like I have a lot to learn about how the EU System works in this case. I agree with you that the EU trial should have been more transparent. However the results are basically the same as those put fowards in the states which was a much more open case. The main difference is that EU looks to much more successful in enforcing the laws it made.

I think you and I have very different Ideas about anti-consumer are... You contend that making a version available without a component that some people might not want or need is anti-consumer. I contend that having a system of vendor lock-in where people are paying many times what they would for a product if there was a competitive market is anti-consumer.

As for the case being six years old - what has happened since. After netscape was killed off development on IE all but ceased. Nearly everybody was taken off the team . There are people inside microsoft who wonder why they even bothered at all. It is only now that Firefox looks like taking breaking IE's strangle hold on the market that development on IE7 started. That really shows that Microsoft is doing it for the consumers doesn't it...

Yes Intel has been in trouble for anticompetition numerous times.... Intel is a lot more private in how it deals with these matters.

No its called vendor lock-in... I can't say for certain that there was no choice but I am willing to bet that there were many social factors that would have made choosing an alternative a very difficult path. Regardless because of this decision said company pretty much has to pay what ever price Microsoft asks for - which is not very consumer friendly.

As for DRM Are you saying that the companies that create and lobby for DRM have no responcibility?

[tozz]

Ok looks like I have a lot to learn about how the EU System works in this case. I agree with you that the EU trial should have been more transparent. However the results are basically the same as those put fowards in the states which was a much more open case. The main difference is that EU looks to much more successful in enforcing the laws it made.

I think you and I have very different Ideas about anti-consumer are... You contend that making a version available without a component that some people might not want or need is anti-consumer. I contend that having a system of vendor lock-in where people are paying many times what they would for a product if there was a competitive market is anti-consumer.

As for the case being six years old - what has happened since. After netscape was killed off development on IE all but ceased. Nearly everybody was taken off the team . There are people inside microsoft who wonder why they even bothered at all. It is only now that Firefox looks like taking breaking IE's strangle hold on the market that development on IE7 started. That really shows that Microsoft is doing it for the consumers doesn't it...

Yes Intel has been in trouble for anticompetition numerous times.... Intel is a lot more private in how it deals with these matters.

No its called vendor lock-in... I can't say for certain that there was no choice but I am willing to bet that there were many social factors that would have made choosing an alternative a very difficult path. Regardless because of this decision said company pretty much has to pay what ever price Microsoft asks for - which is not very consumer friendly.

As for DRM Are you saying that the companies that create and lobby for DRM have no responcibility?
Anyone is free to not choose Microsoft, and it costs nothing. Buying MS products and paying their insane license money is really a individual choice, and I just can't understand people who make it today.
If there were choice, then it was really up to the buyers, no wasn't it? That's just what I'm trying to say, Microsoft provided an easy path, the competitors a hard one (but in the end a more viable) and people went for the easy one (not a very hard nut to crack). Now Microsoft is in trouble because all those people who went the easy path now regret it and want to go the hard one.
I understand you want Microsoft to let all those people go for free and do everything to make the transition as smooth as possible, sure that would be nice, but it's not really viable for a comercially driven company, it's as if the path from Intel to AMD should be a non-problematic one.
As for IE not developing, true, nothing happened (exept for the silly amounts of offsprings) but that's the case for any market where no innovation is found. Firefox wasn't the first Gecko based reader, but they took som innovation and added to it, and that was what was needed. Could Microsoft have continued working on IE, sure, would it benefit the users in the end, I don't know, the rendering engine they use is quite flawed and I wouldn't want it to have an even stronger grip on the world.
Companies that lobby for DRM can lobby as much as they want for as long as they want, the single factor that takes the talk to the hardware/software is the allowance of a government body to proceed.
There will ofcourse be some tresspassing on those laws by alot of companies, but that's to be expected.

In the end you and I have different opinions on Microsoft and how they should be handled.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.