In the wake of Europe's latest and most amusing action against Microsoft--a new fine of $357 million levied by the European Commission because it doesn't like the way the software giant opened up its source code in response to the Commission's antitrust decree--the company has unveiled new operating principles for its software design. These principles, which are to be reflected in next year's scheduled launch of Vista (the next version of Windows), emphasize flexibility, easy interoperability with other manufacturers' products, innovation and market choice.
What's really new here? Not much. Microsoft has been accused--not just in Europe--of bludgeoning its way to the top of the software universe by using proprietary code and savvy marketing tie-ins to head off not just other operating systems but also add-on software products that could compete with Microsoft's own versions. Its allegedly anticompetitive bundling of Internet Explorer into Windows, for example, was a major focus of the EC's antitrust complaint and, indeed, Microsoft dutifully complied with Europe's unbundling order. The result is the marketing of a Euro-special version of Windows, sans browser, that no one in the world actually wants to purchase.
It's unclear why bundling is fine for some types of manufactured goods but not others.
Why should they? While it certainly helps Microsoft to have IE as a built-in default browser pre-installed on personal computers--on the theory that lazy users won't look any further for their browser needs--nothing stops those users from installing another browser if they wish. The inclusion of Internet Explorer is a cost benefit for consumers.
In terms of competition theory, it's unclear why bundling is fine for some types of manufactured goods (automobiles don't have to be sold with the seats, radios and navigation systems stripped out to enhance competition, for example) but not others (software pre-installed on computers).
Europe no doubt wants credit for Microsoft's new operating principles because EC authorities think their fly-swats at Microsoft have revolutionized the technological landscape. Earlier this year, EC Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes told Microsoft that Europe expects Vista to be created "in line with the European competition laws...It would be rather stupid to design something that is not."
So now Europe, not exactly the leader of the pack in today's global economy, wants to take on the task of designing tomorrow's software products. Perhaps the inter-Europe alliance that created the Concorde, the late, lamented, supersonic transport that failed every test of market success, could take on this vital new task.
To think that such rhetoric is actually driving the software market is like believing the sun rises just because the rooster crows.
Seriously, no one should doubt that Microsoft has an eye to its political situation (not just in Europe) when it designs and markets products--why incur legal costs you don't need to? At the same time, it's ridiculous to think the world's leading software company would engineer its revamped platform for the benefit of "competition policy" rather than for the benefit of consumers.
Microsoft knows as well as anyone that the exponential growth of the PC market and of Internet usage has greatly transformed its consumer base: More people want more options, more flexibility, and the power to create and explore new market niches. By definition, this new consumer demands products that are less top-down in terms of engineering and more responsive to the particular needs of each individual user--more customizable, as it were.
That this new market profile may coincide with some rhetorical flourishes from European authorities is interesting and amusing. But to think that such rhetoric is actually driving the software market is like believing the sun rises just because the rooster crows.
Europe is a spectator of the software scene (albeit a particularly annoying one), skimming a little money off the top with its antitrust fines while pretending to stand up for European technological might. It's a pleasant bit of theater, but don't confuse it with the real world.
Biography George A. Pieler is senior research fellow at the Institute for Policy Innovation.
The EU is nothing, if not a bureaucracy in search of a problem.
Microsoft should have named the IE-less version of Windows the "-EU" version. They should do the same with Vista, except this time hold up release in Europe until the EU signs off on the "-EU" version, and make it clear that no release of VISA on the continent will happen until the EU agrees to a no-penalty policy (quid-pro-quo for the -EU version, which no one will want anyway).
<i>Europe no doubt wants credit for Microsoft's new operating principles, because EC authorities think their fly-swats at Microsoft have revolutionized the technological landscape. Earlier this year, EC Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes told Microsoft that Europe expects Vista to be created "in line with the European competition laws...It would be rather stupid to design something that is not." </i>
If Microsoft would like to do business in Europe, they are bound by the laws of europe. (I think that part is without controversy. Now Microsoft was found to be in conflict with said laws with previous versions of windows. I interpret the quote by Ms. Kroes as to mean, that Microsoft will take the laws of europe into account when creating vista, so that they will save a lot of trouble later.
What does that have to do with "revolutionizing the technological landscape"?
I also like that part:"while pretending to stand up for European technological might". Hmm..lets see who some of the complainants are in europe: IBM, Oracle, Sun, Real Networks....yes it seems only failing european companies....
The point is that every where else on the globe, [b]except[/b] for the offices of EC Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes, Vista users want to see Vista be 100% of all it can be. Not doing so is even more stupid than designing it with the "one set of rules for Microsoft, one set of rules for everyone else" mindset Ms. Kroes has.
I'm liking my "-EU" version, with a no penalty gurantee from Ms. Kroes, idea more and more.
...a socialist filled continent. For some reason or another, many European Governments fill that in order to bring about competition, they must control everything. However, the oposite is true.
When one looks at the United States, all they have to see is that in industries where the government keeps its nose out of the people's business, everything is fine. All of this started when the government started the FDA to regulate food companies because of the way that animals were treated when they were killed for meat for us to eat. Although the people at the time were in an uproar, if the government had stayed out, the free-market would have taken over things and the people would have only purchased meat that treated fairly. There was no need for the government to do what it did. We now have what we have as a result of that. The US is slowly becomeing another Europe! May God help us all!
This article was offensive and ignorant on so many levels. Arrogant and condenscenting on Europe - that the author more than obviously has no clue about - his article could read like a Microsoft press statement. Not only that is choice of comparisons is as unlucky as the entire rest. Yes - as a matter of fact - I'd like to see competition in the Car Stereo/GPS market. Manufacturers offer overprized electronics, that don't hold the water against what's available in the open market - both what pricing and performance is concerned and protecting this obviously profitable area by applying custom setups. And what the Browser issue is concerned - it is a fact that the basic user doesn't switch, because of the lack of know how and Microsoft builds on that. Despite the common knowledge - that IE trails in both performance and security both Firefox and Opera by a mile - and so far IE7 wasn't able to catch up significantly. So what is the authors motivation to write such an article that is not only factually incorrect but taking Microsoft's stand on an issue that US Courts already have decided not to be kosher?
It's not Microsoft's fault that basic users aren't IT literate. If users want, they CAN switch to other browsers and they should take some responsibility for understanding their tools.
Personally, I use a Mac. Apple bundle Safari with OS X, why aren't they getting a grilling for the same reason?
Lets see here. I.E. is the source of the lawsuit in Europe? I don't think so. I think it's a bad browser that was never constructed correctly, with a worldwide displeasure of it, and a egocentric EU trying to make a name for itself by serving this lawsuit & imposing these fines. How will Europeans get their Windows updates without I.E.? What about the twenty to thirty percent of the websites and pages on the WWW that work only with I.E.? Some companies like Computer Associates require I.E. as a recepticle for their Firewall & Anti-Virus suites! What about that? How will all that money that the EU gets over this lawsuit, change the problems that still exist? How many times are the EU gonna drop the ball? I knew the EU was in trouble financially when they went after Microshaft over this nonsense. We all should know by now, how Microshaft either absorbs the competition by buying it outright, or how it sues its competition into the dust. The EU lawsuit never addresses this. Now the EU cyber-community will have to download I.E. as a separate item, instead of it being pre-installed. Like that's gonna help! What a grand waste of time for the EU cyber-community! Everyone should know by now, that Microshaft's I.E. is junk. Do they need it to be a separate download to emphasize it? If Firefox could download and install these MS/Windows updates, then maybe the EU lawsuit would have some merit. Unfortunately, until browsers like Firefox, Opera, etc. are able to download and install the MS/Windows updates, then their point is mute, and the lawsuit is just EU ego-stroking. The EU let's loose a paper tiger, and Microshaft lights a match! LOL!
"How will Europeans get their Windows updates without I.E.?"
Well therein lies the problem that the EU are trying to tackle. MSFT have built their browser into the actual operating system so it has access to things and functions that no other browser has. They have given it an unfair advantage. Microsoft have made it as difficult as possible to use something other than IE, and this is the anti-competitive behaviour that the EU are trying to rule out. Sure you can download and use another browser, but have you ever tried to uninstall IE?
It shouldn't need the company's own brand browser to get an update to the operating system. The fact that it does (IF it does, I'm not a windows user, so I can't vouch for that) is anti-competitive.
"What about the twenty to thirty percent of the websites and pages on the WWW that work only with I.E.?"
Huh? I seem to have missed that little nugget of information on my travels around the internet... Assuming it were true, it just adds fuel to the EU's fire. Anyone who has had any dealings in HTML or website design will have noticed that in recent years the W3C have been trying to tidy up the internet. The dominant browser has been IE for the past few years. IE is very forgiving of badly-written HTML and it even has a few quirks that means it doesn't comply with standards. As a result the internet has become possibly the most badly-written thing in the computer arena, because designers have been designing for IE. Now website designers are faced with a conundrum; design for IE and blow the standards, or design for compliance to standards and blow the 90% of the market who use IE? It's a stalemate. I say hats off to the EU for at least trying to break out of the apathy and do something about it.
Granted, people are going to hate the EU for it, but then people always do hate the person who shakes them out of their hole and makes them think...
I'm a European (UK), Mac user but I do agree with you on a lot of stuff in your article. Why should Microsoft be grilled for bundling software? It doesn't mean people have to use it. When I use Windows, I often use Firefox instead of IE and iTunes in stead of Windows Media Player. Both were free and easy to install on a Windows machine.
I think Europe is frustrated that a U.S. company make the world's most used OS but why should Microsoft feel guilty for being successful? I don't think Windows is the world's best OS, I chose to Switch to Mac OS X but only when Apple released an Intel machine that would allow to use Windows as well when I need to.
Microsoft can be criticised for not using open-standards but complaining because they give you free stuff with your copy of Windows seems a bit lame.
The cost of IE is definately in that WinXP license fee someplace. They may have IE7 available for download but you can bet that bundled IE version justified a budget and a markup.
I'd have less support for the EU's crusade (I can't support it all as it does apear to be a crusade) if one could uninstall IE but it's so intimately written into the OS that you break every function added after win3.11 if you do.
It is fun to use the old window manager instead of IE sometimes but really not functional for ongoing use.
For me, I'll stick to *nix with a win32 boot for gaming until game publishers get there hand out of M$'s pants.
What the author clearly fails to see when he says "automobiles don't have to be sold with the seats, radios and navigation systems stripped out to enhance competition, for example", is that an automobile is not complete without these things. You cannot drive a car without seats. But you CAN order one without a radio. Why MSFT is anti-competitive is because it bundles software NOT NEEDED in an Operating System (underlying software used to make the hardware all work together and allow other software to access the hardware), when there are more popular (often commercial) alternatives out there.
What's worse, is that although these "features" appear to be free, the price of a Windows OS grows each release. You find this acceptable behavior?
Technically, you can drive a vehicle without a seat (I know some of the postage trucks in my area lack seats because of the short distances they travel) but it's not optimum to do so. Similarly, you can technically operate Windows without IE, but you there are limitations (no Windows Updates, some programs and sites don't work).
Sorry.. But a radio and a navigation system are NOT required in a fully functional automobile, and manufacturers can bundle whatever they feel is appropriate. Floor mats, wheel locks, and fog lamps are also not required, but nobody forces automobile companies to offer vehicles without them. On the other hand, Microsoft's browser-less Operating System is the ONLY common operating system in the world that ships without a browser. And as the author so correctly pointed out, NOBODY wants it. After all..... what good is an operating system without a browser?!?
The author, being a lawyer by trade, seems to demonstrate to us that it is all about crafted, persuasive prose, rather than accuracy.
My understanding is that bundling is not a monopoly issue if no independent market exists for the feature being bundled. IE was an issue because various an independent market for browsers existed. Various PC suppliers (in the US case) were "persuaded" to forgo Netscape -- that was the one of the instances of monopoly-position abuse.
As for the tech knowhow, try removing IE, then try to use the software update service to patch/update the OS. You will find it difficult indeed.
Great article for someone who's obviously never sat foot outside his Alabama backwater trailerpark...Perhaps a trip across the pond might help that vaguely repressed anger against Europe.
Anyone remember this? no? how many were sold? exactly...the author is (crudely) but stating the EU sure they can remove IE from Windows then everyone is going to complain that there is no browser and they will sell Windows - E and guess what NO ONE is going to buy it...Vista from what I can tell does not rely on IE to do updates (as you no longer use the browser to do the updates) if you dont want to use something that is included no one is forcing you...and if you select to download the updates automatically but not install them IE again does not need to be in use
To own and operate a car you need to have a seat to sit in, therefore it is a necessary part of the car. The car seat was not added to put other car seat makers out of business.
To own and operate a OS you do not need a web browser built in, just like you don't need MS office built in. If I were to follow your theory then MS should bundle every app know to man because it somehow has something to do with running a computer. Lets call a spade a spade here. MS bundled IE to put Netscape out of business, which is exactly what happened. Now they have taken it a step further and developed certain aspects of using their OS to depend on IE to ensure its dominance. Good business move? probably. Legal? hard to say. Good for innovation? definitely not. good for the end user? In the long run no, short run, sometimes.
Most Linux distros do pack about every app known to Linux and then you can install and uninstall as you want to. All for free I might add.
Take the browser, you can choose from 30 to 40 free browsers. Take CD burning, you can choose from about a dozen. Office suites I can choose from about 6. etc... Once you find the best one for you, then you just unistall the rest.
I might add most Linux programs you install update automatically with the Linux OS updates. You then always have the most current version. I like Ubuntu Linux because it only deals with very good pre-tested free apps. I have found that freeware in Linux has saved me about $1000 per PC on 9 PC's.
It's funny (and not in a good way) that virtually every continent on the planet (including North America) has found Microsoft guilty of misconduct with regard to their operating system monopoly yet there is never a shortage of Americans like this guy who have the audacity to stand up and say the rest of the world is wrong. I'd love to hear the author's opinion on why a criminal shouldn't be punished if they break the law. Perhaps he'd feel differently if he were on the receiving end of illegal corporate behaviour rather than the receiving end of a corporate criminal's cheque book?
George ought to carefully consider the tone of his statements when drafting these kinds of articles. It does nobody any good to ridicule and lambast for the sake of it. Stick to the facts, make your point and you'll find the vast majority agree with the basic tennets.
"Europe not exactly the leader of the pack" etc is unbecoming of a senior fellow is it not? To go on and refer to Concorde as a failure in the market is just waving a red rag. Let's get more up to date and discuss Airbus and Boeing shall we?
I suspect many enjoy a love hate relationship with Microsoft, but then some of us remember for example the days when we had to go through lengthy conversions when a business partner was using Wordperfect of Lotus WordPro etc. Sadly they are tiny now, but the interoperability on a global scale has, it must be conceded, helped us all. Sure the EU's meddling really is of no help to anyone, but then I'd make a further point. It seems to me that most Americans view Europe as a homogenous group, and the Europeans have a similar view of America. Then we note that in America sales tax varies from state to state, you can buy guns in some places and not others, you can be executed in one place and not another, all fairly significant differences between the states' legislative systems. And yet Americans still believe that something the EU says will be applied unilaterally across this thing called Europe?
Time you got on an Airbus and came over to see what it's really like!
Both entity's, in this article, Microsoft and the EU, are arrogant and condesending, and so is the author of the article......., do three wrongs ,make a right? The entire situation ( and article ) is/are rediculous.Windows is a product, buy it or don't.
For a "Senior Fellow" in the "Institute for Policy Innovation" this article does seem a little narrow-minded and partial.
First, why wouldn't anyone "in the world actually want to purchase" a copy of the OS without a browser? It may seem weird, but if I'm buying an OS, all I want is an OS. I can choose later my browser. The growing relevance of browsers such as Firefox counter the opinion that users are just too lazy to go and fetch their own applications. That's like evaluating everyone by the lowest denominator - which is, in pratice, what the much-hyped "user friendliness" of Microsoft is all about. Yes, there are lots of users (perhaps the majority) who, for now, don't really care what they use and stick with what comes in the package - not that its particularly good, but they just don't know anything else, on most cases. But the point is, IE wouldn't be the #1 browser if it had to compete with other browsers on the same terms (that is, not attached to the OS). So, not much as a "benefit" for the users, but more like an intelligent(??) way to keep a product that's not that good (it doesn't need to be) as #1 by artificial means (attached to the OS).
The analogy with the automobile industry is just too far-off and almost moronic. Seats, for instance, are a vital part of the automobile, unlike a browser in any OS. IE would be more like the cd player, at most, if such type of comparisons are really called for, which I believe are not.
Other than that, most comments and opinions stated on the article about Europe show little but prejudice on the part of the author. Of course the EU expects Microsoft's desing for Vista to comply with European laws. Don't the US want Vista to comply with their laws? Doesn't any country wants that? Not because the EU wants "part of Microsoft's credit", thank you very much, but we've plenty more to credit ourselves without having to jump into anyone else's user-friendly bandwagon. You could turn this argument around and say Microsoft expected to change EU's laws on competition - or maybe just that EU would turn a blind eye on their products, allowing them to disregard our laws?
Microsoft has lots of dollar power. Don't mistake it with innovation. And as to Europe, try to learn a bit more behind the american news headlines.
I think that Microsoft is abusing its position, by bundling software. But I have a different point of view.
I don´t mind an operating system that comes with IE or Mozilla preinstalled, or even office software. The problem is that MS is creating these apps. only for Micorosoft Windows operating systems. If there was a version of MS Office, and Internet Explorer for Linux, the operating system, Windows, wouldn´t be installed in 90% of the personal computers. Windows probably wouldn´t hold itself, without the help of the exclusivity of these MS apps.
I don´t really understand why all the lawsuits are chasing MS Windows, instead of all the other (MS and other companies) applications that only run on "selected" operating systems.
First time I've heard this approach and it is interesting. I don't know that it's the lack of portability of software rather than lack of or forced software options that's a problem.
MS produces software for osX; msOffice, IE, MSN IM. Infact Billy got the chance to steel the window manager from Apple directly because they where developing software for macOS. "Wow, that's cool Steve. Can we take one of those Lisa's home so we can use it to test the software we're writting for your OS - and revwerse engineer the hell out of it.. and steal source code?"
Actually, I believe the quote was "I want IT" rather than "I want to work with it".
As for wishing MS would port software to *nix; the community is not computer illiterate and has a clear understanding of history so they don't want it. If your running Linux.. you should know already that there are so many better offerings. There are pleanty of offerings that need more work but there are so many more offerings that trump MS functionality.
MS is opening it's arms and sticky fingers to the FOSS world now so we'll see how that goes. Remember though, Billyware and FOSS went two different directions that faitful day Bill's open letter got to the homebrew computer club's members.
The Homebrew Club - the innovators prefered sharing software to see how far they could push the hardware and build on prior art.
The Business Billy - "when you share software, what you are doing is thieft" and we know the rest; it's only theft if you loose the legal case.
FOSS such as the Linux kernel and various software distrbutions based on it spawn from the first mind set. Propriatery software remains of the second.
The example of the car seats isn't the brightest one, but the reasoning is right on.
The European Union has actively stimulated Microsoft and actively boycotted others in order to allow Microsoft to become a monster. They should not now complain about it.
While I have always combatted Microsoft, I now feel an urge to defend it, because what the Union has done and is doing is simply revolting.
Quote: "Europe is a spectator of the software scene (albeit a particularly annoying one), skimming a little money off the top with its antitrust fines while pretending to stand up for European technological might. It's a pleasant bit of theater, but don't confuse it with the real world."
Microsoft has what I believe to be a great OS today as well as a great suit of applications but I don't believe that a good result can justify the way in which it is achieved. Lets also please not forget that the telephone was invented in Edinburgh, Scotland and that the Linux kernel was written in Helsinki, Finland not to mention the WWW invented in Switzerland by an Englishman so please spare us the comment about "a bit of theater." Also to go right back, let me remind you that the early US scientific minds were educated in Europe before there was even a ship yard in the states. Peace.
Im not an MD but in my lay opinion the chromosome count should be verified
Mr. Peeler is like mo$t making a table dance, a Micro$oft table dance. Concerning his ignorance self-statement I think thats a concern for his educators, concerning his impoliteness his Parents are to blame, concerning his position in that unknown Institute I hope it does not mirror the said Institute Policy and Quality, concerning his seniority & well the photo says it all.
I think he will find that the GDP of the EU exceeds that of the US
His perception of the history of how IE camer to dominate is questionable to say the least. The generally held view is that MS used its muscle in the early days of the Internet to bury what was then a better browser - Netscape Navigator. Because MS had the finacial muscle, it obliterated what was then a better product (which was being charged for) by binding its product so tightly with the OS.
Even today it abuses it's position in forcing us to user its vilnerability ridden browser to update its vulnerability ridden opeating systems.
I hve often defended the US position on foreign affairs, but this article is an excellent example of why America is held in such low esteem in today's world. This attitude of 'you do what we want or else' simply won't play in the real world.
A common jibe about America is always late, always wrong, always insensitive and always domineering. The screams of self righteous outrage outrage when someone deploys their own tactics against them(someone mentioned Airbus and Boeing) are a source of constant amusement. On a related theme, the open skys debate seems to be at the point where the US demands total access to the EU market whilst excluding g foriegn carriers from its domestic airspace. Or the US refusal to ratify extradition treaties(which it is currently making very questionable use of) because it might offend a large chunk of domestic voters who think that blowing up innocent citizens in Northern Ireland is patriotic.
People like Mr Pieler do the American cause absolutely no good at all - if this is what is regarded as the norm for 'Senior' opinion formers in the US then heaven help us all(and you btw)
The Eurocrats are also pathetic - some of the stuff that comes out of Brussles is just unbelievably stupid and we have, arguably, the most insane and expensive agricultural system in the world.
I could not agree more with this article's author. Everything stated has an absolute rational sense of support. I am no Microsoft employee, but as an experienced PC user, I believe that Microsoft does absolutely a great deed at providing me with all of the resources I need to fulfill the perfect Windows experience. Microsoft deserves full right at adding all of the well-needed applications, while the EU should concentrate on something they have at least a minor clue and not software effiency.
That it is so convenient; or, (are these cases of acute amnesia) that so many appear to forget about "The Constitution of the United States of America" in this day and age is beyond my comprehension when it is also to be remembered what is stated in part in THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE that "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world"; that was then; so, are some to assume that there exist a group (in the EU) which is bent on injecting a new (brain washing drug) so; low and behold, the U.S. Constitution is circumvented by denying this "author" his rights as described in the U. S. Bill of Rights the first of which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."; so, in essence a particular U.S. based company (targeted by certain EU cronies) and the author of this article should not express themselves as freely as they please? Sheesh!
IPI is a maximum Conservative lobby and Microsoft Apologist. This sort of thing should not be published as op/ed with out due disclosure. <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?" target="_newWindow">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?</a> title=Institute_for_Policy_Innovation
How to kill a lobbyist's PR piece in one sentence: You can order a new car WITHOUT a radio. Bundle that with the rest of your useless tripe and toss it in the trash, where it belongs.
Well thanks George Pieler for your narrow minded biased opinion of the global software market, im wondering who will be paying for your mercedes slk (sans car stereo). Its very easy to forget that Microsoft have been accused of antitrust around the world (including in the USA). The difference with Europe is that they refused to settle for a financial reward to cash in their complaints. You may be happy to live in a world where choice is a myth, but I believe that consumers should really be able to choose. I would like to be able to purchase software from a number of different vendors including microsoft. If the Operating System details are not given to application developers, then they will not be able to produce top quality products. The result is that Microsoft applications have a distinct advantage and users are left with a choice of one. That is bad for consumers and it is bad for innovation. Anyone in a capitalist environment should be able to see that. Saying that it is ok for Microsoft to stifle competition and innovation is like inviting returning to the bad old soviet days - only the one player in this game would be a corporation! As far as the european slap in the face, it must be annoying finding that government bodies are not bowled over by lobbyist cash and actually believe that they are working for the greater good.
Letting the government regulate trade and business is a return to the old soviet system. There are plenty of OS alternatives available but the majority of businesses and users choose MS products. Now why would someone pay for a product (Windows) if there is a free product that is superior? (I use Windows, OS-X, Linux, Unix and some OS's most have never heard about..HPL...Xenix) The market does not work that way, remember the old cliché build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door? It still applies.
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
The EU is nothing, if not a bureaucracy in search of a problem.
Microsoft should have named the IE-less version of Windows the "-EU" version. They should do the same with Vista, except this time hold up release in Europe until the EU signs off on the "-EU" version, and make it clear that no release of VISA on the continent will happen until the EU agrees to a no-penalty policy (quid-pro-quo for the -EU version, which no one will want anyway).
paragraph:
<i>Europe no doubt wants credit for Microsoft's
new operating principles, because EC authorities
think their fly-swats at Microsoft have
revolutionized the technological landscape.
Earlier this year, EC Competition Commissioner
Neelie Kroes told Microsoft that Europe expects
Vista to be created "in line with the European
competition laws...It would be rather stupid to
design something that is not." </i>
If Microsoft would like to do business in
Europe, they are bound by the laws of europe. (I
think that part is without controversy. Now
Microsoft was found to be in conflict with said
laws with previous versions of windows. I
interpret the quote by Ms. Kroes as to mean,
that Microsoft will take the laws of europe into
account when creating vista, so that they will
save a lot of trouble later.
What does that have to do with "revolutionizing
the technological landscape"?
I also like that part:"while pretending to stand
up for European technological might". Hmm..lets
see who some of the complainants are in europe:
IBM, Oracle, Sun, Real Networks....yes it seems
only failing european companies....
I'm liking my "-EU" version, with a no penalty gurantee from Ms. Kroes, idea more and more.
So there!
When one looks at the United States, all they have to see is that in industries where the government keeps its nose out of the people's business, everything is fine. All of this started when the government started the FDA to regulate food companies because of the way that animals were treated when they were killed for meat for us to eat. Although the people at the time were in an uproar, if the government had stayed out, the free-market would have taken over things and the people would have only purchased meat that treated fairly. There was no need for the government to do what it did. We now have what we have as a result of that. The US is slowly becomeing another Europe! May God help us all!
Arrogant and condenscenting on Europe - that the author more than obviously has no clue about - his article could read like a Microsoft press statement.
Not only that is choice of comparisons is as unlucky as the entire rest.
Yes - as a matter of fact - I'd like to see competition in the Car Stereo/GPS market.
Manufacturers offer overprized electronics, that don't hold the water against what's available in the open market - both what pricing and performance is concerned and protecting this obviously profitable area by applying custom setups.
And what the Browser issue is concerned - it is a fact that the basic user doesn't switch, because of the lack of know how and Microsoft builds on that. Despite the common knowledge - that IE trails in both performance and security both Firefox and Opera by a mile - and so far IE7 wasn't able to catch up significantly.
So what is the authors motivation to write such an article that is not only factually incorrect but taking Microsoft's stand on an issue that US Courts already have decided not to be kosher?
want, they CAN switch to other browsers and they should take
some responsibility for understanding their tools.
Personally, I use a Mac. Apple bundle Safari with OS X, why aren't
they getting a grilling for the same reason?
Well therein lies the problem that the EU are trying to tackle. MSFT have built their browser into the actual operating system so it has access to things and functions that no other browser has. They have given it an unfair advantage. Microsoft have made it as difficult as possible to use something other than IE, and this is the anti-competitive behaviour that the EU are trying to rule out. Sure you can download and use another browser, but have you ever tried to uninstall IE?
It shouldn't need the company's own brand browser to get an update to the operating system. The fact that it does (IF it does, I'm not a windows user, so I can't vouch for that) is anti-competitive.
"What about the twenty to thirty percent of the websites and pages on the WWW that work only with I.E.?"
Huh? I seem to have missed that little nugget of information on my travels around the internet... Assuming it were true, it just adds fuel to the EU's fire. Anyone who has had any dealings in HTML or website design will have noticed that in recent years the W3C have been trying to tidy up the internet. The dominant browser has been IE for the past few years. IE is very forgiving of badly-written HTML and it even has a few quirks that means it doesn't comply with standards. As a result the internet has become possibly the most badly-written thing in the computer arena, because designers have been designing for IE. Now website designers are faced with a conundrum; design for IE and blow the standards, or design for compliance to standards and blow the 90% of the market who use IE? It's a stalemate. I say hats off to the EU for at least trying to break out of the apathy and do something about it.
Granted, people are going to hate the EU for it, but then people always do hate the person who shakes them out of their hole and makes them think...
stuff in your article. Why should Microsoft be grilled for bundling
software? It doesn't mean people have to use it. When I use
Windows, I often use Firefox instead of IE and iTunes in stead of
Windows Media Player. Both were free and easy to install on a
Windows machine.
I think Europe is frustrated that a U.S. company make the world's
most used OS but why should Microsoft feel guilty for being
successful? I don't think Windows is the world's best OS, I chose
to Switch to Mac OS X but only when Apple released an Intel
machine that would allow to use Windows as well when I need
to.
Microsoft can be criticised for not using open-standards but
complaining because they give you free stuff with your copy of
Windows seems a bit lame.
I'd have less support for the EU's crusade (I can't support it all as it does apear to be a crusade) if one could uninstall IE but it's so intimately written into the OS that you break every function added after win3.11 if you do.
It is fun to use the old window manager instead of IE sometimes but really not functional for ongoing use.
For me, I'll stick to *nix with a win32 boot for gaming until game publishers get there hand out of M$'s pants.
What's worse, is that although these "features" appear to be free, the price of a Windows OS grows each release. You find this acceptable behavior?
that it is all about crafted, persuasive prose, rather than
accuracy.
My understanding is that bundling is not a monopoly issue if no
independent market exists for the feature being bundled. IE was
an issue because various an independent market for browsers
existed. Various PC suppliers (in the US case) were "persuaded"
to forgo Netscape -- that was the one of the instances of
monopoly-position abuse.
As for the tech knowhow, try removing IE, then try to use the
software update service to patch/update the OS. You will find it
difficult indeed.
To own and operate a OS you do not need a web browser built in, just like you don't need MS office built in. If I were to follow your theory then MS should bundle every app know to man because it somehow has something to do with running a computer. Lets call a spade a spade here. MS bundled IE to put Netscape out of business, which is exactly what happened. Now they have taken it a step further and developed certain aspects of using their OS to depend on IE to ensure its dominance. Good business move? probably. Legal? hard to say. Good for innovation? definitely not. good for the end user? In the long run no, short run, sometimes.
Take the browser, you can choose from 30 to 40 free browsers. Take CD burning, you can choose from about a dozen. Office suites I can choose from about 6. etc... Once you find the best one for you, then you just unistall the rest.
I might add most Linux programs you install update automatically with the Linux OS updates. You then always have the most current version. I like Ubuntu Linux because it only deals with very good pre-tested free apps. I have found that freeware in Linux has saved me about $1000 per PC on 9 PC's.
I get to pocket the savings.
"Europe not exactly the leader of the pack" etc is unbecoming of a senior fellow is it not? To go on and refer to Concorde as a failure in the market is just waving a red rag. Let's get more up to date and discuss Airbus and Boeing shall we?
I suspect many enjoy a love hate relationship with Microsoft, but then some of us remember for example the days when we had to go through lengthy conversions when a business partner was using Wordperfect of Lotus WordPro etc. Sadly they are tiny now, but the interoperability on a global scale has, it must be conceded, helped us all. Sure the EU's meddling really is of no help to anyone, but then I'd make a further point. It seems to me that most Americans view Europe as a homogenous group, and the Europeans have a similar view of America. Then we note that in America sales tax varies from state to state, you can buy guns in some places and not others, you can be executed in one place and not another, all fairly significant differences between the states' legislative systems. And yet Americans still believe that something the EU says will be applied unilaterally across this thing called Europe?
Time you got on an Airbus and came over to see what it's really like!
Andrew
First, why wouldn't anyone "in the world actually want to purchase" a copy of the OS without a browser? It may seem weird, but if I'm buying an OS, all I want is an OS. I can choose later my browser. The growing relevance of browsers such as Firefox counter the opinion that users are just too lazy to go and fetch their own applications. That's like evaluating everyone by the lowest denominator - which is, in pratice, what the much-hyped "user friendliness" of Microsoft is all about. Yes, there are lots of users (perhaps the majority) who, for now, don't really care what they use and stick with what comes in the package - not that its particularly good, but they just don't know anything else, on most cases. But the point is, IE wouldn't be the #1 browser if it had to compete with other browsers on the same terms (that is, not attached to the OS). So, not much as a "benefit" for the users, but more like an intelligent(??) way to keep a product that's not that good (it doesn't need to be) as #1 by artificial means (attached to the OS).
The analogy with the automobile industry is just too far-off and almost moronic. Seats, for instance, are a vital part of the automobile, unlike a browser in any OS. IE would be more like the cd player, at most, if such type of comparisons are really called for, which I believe are not.
Other than that, most comments and opinions stated on the article about Europe show little but prejudice on the part of the author. Of course the EU expects Microsoft's desing for Vista to comply with European laws. Don't the US want Vista to comply with their laws? Doesn't any country wants that? Not because the EU wants "part of Microsoft's credit", thank you very much, but we've plenty more to credit ourselves without having to jump into anyone else's user-friendly bandwagon. You could turn this argument around and say Microsoft expected to change EU's laws on competition - or maybe just that EU would turn a blind eye on their products, allowing them to disregard our laws?
Microsoft has lots of dollar power. Don't mistake it with innovation. And as to Europe, try to learn a bit more behind the american news headlines.
I don´t mind an operating system that comes with IE or Mozilla preinstalled, or even office software. The problem is that MS is creating these apps. only for Micorosoft Windows operating systems. If there was a version of MS Office, and Internet Explorer for Linux, the operating system, Windows, wouldn´t be installed in 90% of the personal computers. Windows probably wouldn´t hold itself, without the help of the exclusivity of these MS apps.
I don´t really understand why all the lawsuits are chasing MS Windows, instead of all the other (MS and other companies) applications that only run on "selected" operating systems.
MS produces software for osX; msOffice, IE, MSN IM. Infact Billy got the chance to steel the window manager from Apple directly because they where developing software for macOS. "Wow, that's cool Steve. Can we take one of those Lisa's home so we can use it to test the software we're writting for your OS - and revwerse engineer the hell out of it.. and steal source code?"
Actually, I believe the quote was "I want IT" rather than "I want to work with it".
As for wishing MS would port software to *nix; the community is not computer illiterate and has a clear understanding of history so they don't want it. If your running Linux.. you should know already that there are so many better offerings. There are pleanty of offerings that need more work but there are so many more offerings that trump MS functionality.
MS is opening it's arms and sticky fingers to the FOSS world now so we'll see how that goes. Remember though, Billyware and FOSS went two different directions that faitful day Bill's open letter got to the homebrew computer club's members.
The Homebrew Club - the innovators prefered sharing software to see how far they could push the hardware and build on prior art.
The Business Billy - "when you share software, what you are doing is thieft" and we know the rest; it's only theft if you loose the legal case.
FOSS such as the Linux kernel and various software distrbutions based on it spawn from the first mind set. Propriatery software remains of the second.
The European Union has actively stimulated Microsoft and actively boycotted others in order to allow Microsoft to become a monster. They should not now complain about it.
While I have always combatted Microsoft, I now feel an urge to defend it, because what the Union has done and is doing is simply revolting.
Greetings from 060825-0301 18C Toronto
Microsoft has what I believe to be a great OS today as well as a great suit of applications but I don't believe that a good result can justify the way in which it is achieved. Lets also please not forget that the telephone was invented in Edinburgh, Scotland and that the Linux kernel was written in Helsinki, Finland not to mention the WWW invented in Switzerland by an Englishman so please spare us the comment about "a bit of theater." Also to go right back, let me remind you that the early US scientific minds were educated in Europe before there was even a ship yard in the states. Peace.
Kindest Regards from E.U.
I think he will find that the GDP of the EU exceeds that of the US
His perception of the history of how IE camer to dominate is
questionable to say the least. The generally held view is that MS
used its muscle in the early days of the Internet to bury what
was then a better browser - Netscape Navigator. Because MS had
the finacial muscle, it obliterated what was then a better product
(which was being charged for) by binding its product so tightly
with the OS.
Even today it abuses it's position in forcing us to user its
vilnerability ridden browser to update its vulnerability ridden
opeating systems.
I hve often defended the US position on foreign affairs, but this
article is an excellent example of why America is held in such
low esteem in today's world. This attitude of 'you do what we
want or else' simply won't play in the real world.
A common jibe about America is always late, always wrong,
always insensitive and always domineering. The screams of self
righteous outrage outrage when someone deploys their own
tactics against them(someone mentioned Airbus and Boeing) are
a source of constant amusement. On a related theme, the open
skys debate seems to be at the point where the US demands
total access to the EU market whilst excluding g foriegn carriers
from its domestic airspace. Or the US refusal to ratify
extradition treaties(which it is currently making very
questionable use of) because it might offend a large chunk of
domestic voters who think that blowing up innocent citizens in
Northern Ireland is patriotic.
People like Mr Pieler do the American cause absolutely no good
at all - if this is what is regarded as the norm for 'Senior' opinion
formers in the US then heaven help us all(and you btw)
The Eurocrats are also pathetic - some of the stuff that comes
out of Brussles is just unbelievably stupid and we have,
arguably, the most insane and expensive agricultural system in
the world.
A plague on both your houses
sort of thing should not be published as op/ed with out due
disclosure.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?" target="_newWindow">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?</a>
title=Institute_for_Policy_Innovation
new car WITHOUT a radio. Bundle that with the rest of your useless
tripe and toss it in the trash, where it belongs.
opinion of the global software market, im wondering who will be
paying for your mercedes slk (sans car stereo).
Its very easy to forget that Microsoft have been accused of
antitrust around the world (including in the USA). The difference
with Europe is that they refused to settle for a financial reward
to cash in their complaints.
You may be happy to live in a world where choice is a myth, but I
believe that consumers should really be able to choose. I would
like to be able to purchase software from a number of different
vendors including microsoft. If the Operating System details are
not given to application developers, then they will not be able to
produce top quality products.
The result is that Microsoft applications have a distinct
advantage and users are left with a choice of one. That is bad for
consumers and it is bad for innovation. Anyone in a capitalist
environment should be able to see that.
Saying that it is ok for Microsoft to stifle competition and
innovation is like inviting returning to the bad old soviet days -
only the one player in this game would be a corporation!
As far as the european slap in the face, it must be annoying
finding that government bodies are not bowled over by lobbyist
cash and actually believe that they are working for the greater
good.