News Microsoft still getting beaten on by Europe

The fuss is because Microsoft is monopolising the market and destroying progress. If you didn't have WMP or Internet Explorer installed, they'd be an option amoung other media players and web browsers, thus more people would opt for Firefox or Winamp from the word go, gaining support, development and revenue for other projects. As is, "general users" couldn't care about better alternatives, because they live with the limitations of what's given to them and don't know about alternatives.

 

Here try this the next time you purchase a PC or a laptop tell them that you explicitly ask that the system be reformatted with no OS, so that you can install the one that you want. Or better yet do it yourself, because no one is forcing you to use MS OS. What the EU is saying is about as ludicrous as saying that Car Manufacturers should stop shipping cars out to market with tires because they happen to get a big discount from a monopolizing tire comany. So from now on all cars should come with no tires because we sure don't want tire monopolies to tell us what to drive on, hell if I want a cheap China RedFlag brand tire installed on my new BMW I should have the right to do so without having name brand tires shoved down my throat right? Does that make any sense at all, I understand that the Europeans are jealous of the American Software giant but com'on, since when has prebuilt items stopped anyone from making their own changes where they see fit. The EU is sounding more and more like the Nazi party, they are trying to use force to to try to instill freedom does anyone see the irony in that.

How is it destroying progress when Mozilla, WinAmp, Win DVD and so many other third part developer continue to thrive. As a human being not a robot you have the right to make a choice, if you don't like WMP or IE then by all means don't use them install a better counterpart.
The EU's logic is flawed in that it assumes people aren't able to make choices, their argument is about as logical as saying that PS3 and Xbox should stop packaging game controllers with their consoles because it's monopolizing the game control market and killing off game control progress for other smaller third party developer or that Apple should stop packaging their Ipods with earphones because it's killing the progression of third party earphone manufacturers. When in reality human beings always make their own choice as to what they wish to use or not use.
MS OS's are a packaged operating system, hence media and network browsing is an essential part of that packaged Operating System, it's arguable that the OS is not complete without those two vital components.
The EU is just throwing around their weight because thet can, they have become the monopolizing bully that they claim to be fighting against and it sickens me that a respectable organization like EU would be allowed to act with such blatant arrogance.

 

I'm saying they would be better, there would be more options and things we can't even concieve could have happened.

You really do give too much credit to the public. If it works, they'll use it. If there's flaws, the majority won't care/experiment enough to find said flaws. They also don't KNOW of any counterpart, because they just get saddled with WMP!

Just because it's satisfactory doesn't mean we should put up with it, so as well informed "tech people" we should surely be trying to push out the boundaries and try and open up markets?

To put it straight, in the end monopolisation is never good, companies get lazy, put out overpriced, under quality products, and this i think is why the EU wants Microsoft to open up the market and divulge the workings of Windows.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1960403143809172490&q=bill+gates

I don't know why he looked so scared in this video maybe it wasn't him if it was then his whole company must of been at stake

 

You can hardly say this is some screwball EU thing, Microsoft must have gone through every court in America on similar "monopoly" cases looking for a bribeable friendly judge.

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/specials/2127570/microsoft-monopoly-trial

And finally,

It's not over till the fat lady sings.

 

The whole Microsoft monopoly issue started from the dawn of the PC. Several companies were producing kits for people to build computers; so IBM decided to produce a PC as well. Rather than spending the time to develop an OS themselves they hired Bill Gates to produce it. (Bill Gates used an Open Source OS written by a Grad student in his thesis as a foundation, with VEERRY few changes to create DOS) Bill Gates, in turn, negotiated a contract with IBM, which stated that he MAINTAINED all the rights to the OS and recieved a percentage of each copy sold; furthermore, he stipulated that IBM MUST ship a copy of DOS with each PC they sold.
The monopoly was also augmented by Asian companies producing IBM look-alike PC and selling them as IBM compatible. These companies then purchased copies of MS-DOS (same as DOS, just 2 instructions changed; allowing Microsoft to write software to run on MS-DOS but not on DOS) so that they could sell systems that were competitive with the IBMs.
Thus, Microsoft became the defacto standard for all PCs sold; and still is to this day. Due to these contracts signed by Microsoft/IBM most PC vendors are required to sell PCs with a Microsoft OS preinstalled, since they signed similar contracts with Microsoft.
Several Custom PC vendors (i.e. ABS PC) now offer PCs woth or without a preloaded OS, since they build/test systems from standard retail-market components; whereas Dell, HP, etc. buy bulk components manufactured to their specs with their custom BOIS.

Additionally, most 3rd party software on the market (games, multimedia apps, etc.) is written to work under Windows. The EU is simply requiring that Microsoft releases the internal workings of the Windows OS to allow other software vendors to produce an OS that would be 100% compatible with applications written to run under the Windows OS.
The bundling issue being addressed by the EU can be clearly seen in the case of the Office suite. If a person wants only Word or Excel he can only get it by purchasing the standard office suite, rather than buying just the single application.

I build my own computers anyhow and just built a new laptop from a barebone.

 

Forcing a company to give up their source code sounds very Nazyish to me.

 

Micrisoft's single-market-economy (monopoly) in OSs is a Communistic approach; suppressing FREE-market-economy.
Since most International trade (especially between the North American continent and Western (old) Europe) is based on the free-market-economy, it stands to reason that other software developers should be allowed to produce a Windows alternative that is 100% compatible with Windows based applications; promoting a free-market-economy rather than monopolizing. This can only be accomplished by having access to the architecture of the Windows OS.

p.s. Spain (generally very Anglophile) is currently the chair of the EU so it's not fair to always try to pin the blame on the Germans by claiming that the EU has a "Nazyish" attitude toward everything.
Additionally, as pointed out by cpemma, Microsoft has also been facing opposition from the US Department of Justice since 1990 (DOS-based era) for their monopolizing of the software market; illustrating that the EU is not the first Governmental organization to address this issue.

 

And I thought they killed Hitler LOL. Damn EU's dictorial method of free market is about as ironic as Hitler's plans for creating a better world.

Free market is the freedom to compete without political intervention, all companies are equal in a true free market economy.
If you think you can make a better product than do so and if your product is indeed better than you will naturally gain market share, this the basic fundamental of a democratic free market economy.
Lets take Apple, they created a good product along with a good OS and they naturally gained market share, you don't see Apple crying over MS OS monopoly or asking for MS to turn over source codes.
You cannot a have a free market economy based on dictorial government intervention. A government forcing a company to turn over source codes is in itself an Communist approach and it makes me sick that the Europeans would tolerate this whats next forcing KFC to turn over their secret recipe LOL.

Seriously, the moment you begin to force businesses to turn over trade secrets you begin to deconstruct the very same free market economy that you are trying to protect. Whats the point in creating new technology or even patenting inventions when some Nazy Union can simply order you to turn them over in the name of democracy.
Honestly I'm very dissappointed with the Euros, I expected something like this to come from PRC but not them. This just a pompus move.

 

All the EU is trying to accomplish is to allow other software companies to produce an alternative OS that is intercompatible with all windows based programs, since most software is written as such. The main reason why many computer users run dual-boot system is for better stability (running linux, etc.), while still allowing the to run Call of Duty, Half-Life 2, etc.

Wouldn't it be better if someone were to develop an OS kernel that would be very stable (i.e. Linux), not prone to viruses (unlike windows), and be capable of running all applications written to operate in windows (as most software is).
Having a windows alternative (that is 100% compatible with windows-based software) available on the open market would be a true free-market-economy; Windows v. alternative, other ingredients/core, similar functionality, intercompatible applications (akin to AMD v. Intel, ATI v. nVidia, or Coke v. Pepsi). Such an environment would also better pricing on software, because a monopolist (such as MS) can artificially increase the cost of their software, while having competitive products also results in competitive pricing.

competing products = free-market-economy
monopoly = single-market-economy + artificially high prices
Why else are there various: antivirus applications available, car manufacturers, airlines, etc.; to promote free-market-economy.

A software developer woild have to be familiar with the windows architecture to be able to produce a true (100% intercompatible) alternative.
Composers/Songwriters study the works of their predecessors and contemporaries to see how they can produce something better; so why shouldn't software developers study their competition (i.e. windows) to allow them to create something better (currently the standard procedure in the automotive and aircraft markets); if Boeing can study examples of Airbus's work, why can't Ahead software (or any other software company) study the windows product?


Apple/Mac has not filed any suits because they have acquired/maintained a niche in the computer market; in particular, the Audio/Video editing/processing sector. I.E. many A/V programs (especially those written by Apple) are optimized for MACs; yet versions compatible with windows are also sold, allowing them to also maintain a market share among windows users


Furthermore, the major gripe that the EU has with MS ("MicroShaft") is that MS requires all PC manufacturers to sell their systems with their OS; FORCING the consumers to purchase the MS OS, and reducing the possibilities that people will look for a better alternative (in other words monopoly)

p.s. it's not that I'm siding with the EU, I just disagree with MICROSHAFT's business practices

 

I agree with competition, without doubt business is always stimulated by competition, but using a government entity to force a private enterprise to hand out business trade secrets in the name of free market is just plain wrong. I'm gonna give you a analogy, say you were making pizza and all around your city other companies are also making pizza, but you were one of the first pizza joints to first come out and hence everyone has gotten use to the flavor of your pizza and they naturally choose your pizza over the others. Now technically speaking you have a pizza monopoly but you have it under a free market economy and it's in you're righ to have it because you've earned it through freedom of competition.
Now all the other pizza joints are angry because you have the lions share of the market, and they complain that you must hand over your pizza recipe so that they can make the same pizza as you to better compete with you. Now in a democratic nation would you have to give out you're secret recipe? I say no, never your secret recipe is yours and you have every right to its secrecy, if the other joints wanna gain bigger market share they can either try to figure out how to make your pizza on their own or they can make a better pizza all together.
With that said the source code is a software companies bread and butter, like the secret recipe in your pizza and forcing them to hand it over is not the way of democracy but rather the way of a dictorial system of rule. Imagine the precedence it would set for the future, you spend millions on developing a new nanotech health enzyme, once you're done the government says good job now hand it over for the sake of free market there goes your bread and butter and all your hardwork and investment or you create the source code for a new databasing system for corporate entities then the government says we'll just take that cause we wouldn't want you to have a monololy over corporate databasing. Can you see the irony in the EU's rule now；you have in essence taken away the very foundation of free market economy the freedom to compete without government intervention. Hell you might as well just go China's root and make all large corporate entities semi state owned.
I will say again an economy where a government is free to strip any company of it's trade secrets is a economy that is no longer free market in theory.
As for MS OS, other companies are free to attempt to learn key word here is LEARN from MS and attempt to create a better product but forceably taking MS's source code is one step down from banditry and I don't care how you much money MS has.
There is no justification for the forced divulgence of competitive trade secrets in a free market economy; no one can convince me otherwise.

P>S

I'm not three years old thank you very much, I don't need a lesson in economy.
The fact that apple exists regardless of there niche market or pretty shells or whatever other competitive advantage they've managed to use to gain market share, but the simple fact that APPLE and OSX exists shows that there is still free market competition in the world of computing. Which makes EU decision a lie.
Any company like Apple is free to duke it out with MS in this free world, whether they win or lose is based on the factors driven by freedom of competition in that they must create a product that is better or different from MS's in order to gain market share. They must find their niche like Apple has found theirs and doing so does not involve stealing Microsofts Source Code.
In closing, yes I would like to have different software compatible OSs being sold for PC but at what price? At the price of a pompus semi dictorial government who can strip any software vendor of it's precious source code at whim? No if thats the price then let MS have their monopoly because freedom to retain one's own creation is far more important in the long run.

 

I'm merely stating that MS should not require PC manufacturers to sell computers with their OS pre-installed as this in essence forces consumers to purchase windows (and restricts a true free-market economy); even if they only plan to use Linux, etc.

The MS monopoly is also bolstered by the fact that almost all software manufacturers write their software to run under windows only (just because of the MS OS dominance); so it would be desirable to have an intercompatible alternative OS available, under which the aforementioned software would also run (allowing usere to chose, as in Pizza Hut v. Pappa John's).
Granted that requiring MS to give up it's source code may not be the appropriate solution.

In conclusion, the 3 main points that I am trying to make are:
1) PC vendors should allow consumers control of OS selection (even offer systems W/O an OS) rather that have MS force users to purchase their OS
2) an MS alternative OS, which is compatible with Windows-based applications, should be available
3) MS should also adjust its bundling policies; i.e. not force people to buy an office suite if they only want Word