Vista marketing draws antitrust complaints
A correction was made to this story. Read below for details.
WASHINGTON--Government antitrust attorneys said on Wednesday that they continue to receive complaints from hardware makers and other companies about Microsoft's business practices, even as the software giant has stepped up its efforts to cooperate with the state and federal authorities overseeing its antitrust consent decree.
In the more than six years since the department has been enforcing the consent decree, it has received the largest number of complaints from third parties about a particular Windows Vista marketing program run by Microsoft, said Steven Houck, who represents the state of California. The U.S. Justice Department and a number of states said in a court filing last week that complaints were received "from several companies that manufacture and sell a variety of products that work with Windows."
Microsoft has taken actions to change the marketing program since hearing about the complaints but not all concerns have been eliminated, Houck said at a status conference meeting held in a district court to assess the company's compliance with the decree.
The marketing program was developed in response to consumer dissatisfaction with Windows Vista, explained Microsoft attorney Charles Rule.
"It's an issue Microsoft was very concerned about, and Microsoft is going to address those issues very directly, and hopefully successfully, in Windows 7," he said.
In the meantime, Microsoft developed tests to try and make Windows Vista run more efficiently. The company asked original equipment manufacturers and independent software vendors to run the tests.
"The purpose of this was to improve the performance of PCs for consumers," Rule said.
Microsoft attempted to create incentives for the other companies to run the tests by offering marketing dollars in exchange for tests with successful results. However, the software company received complaints from regulators and the other companies that such incentives could be discriminatory and has altered the program.
"Marketing dollars will not be tied to the outcome of those tests," Rule said. "We continue to refine the program so it reaches the objective of making PCs more attractive to consumers."
Microsoft's actions "did move things in a positive direction," Houck said, "but we still have been hearing from (independent software vendors) and (original equipment manufacturers) that they continue to have concerns about these programs."
The Redmond, Wash.-based company has also made progress developing a set of documents that would enable third-party licensees to create software interoperable with the company's operating systems. Four months ago, regulators complained the software maker was dragging its feet in creating the documents, but it has since stepped up efforts and has turned in four to regulators for review.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly expressed concern that Microsoft would not be able to resolve the thousands of technical documentation issues that have cropped up with respect to the documents describing communications protocols licensing. Microsoft acknowledged more will arise as it develops technical documents for Windows 7. Regulators, though, said it was too early to tell whether that would keep the company from resolving all the issues before the consent decree expires in November.
Regulators also noted at the conference that Microsoft resolved an undisclosed complaint, filed by a third party wishing to remain confidential, regarding cross-platform gaming. To settle the matter, Microsoft agreed to provide additional compliance training to Windows employees who work with hardware vendors. One of Microsoft's executives will also make a statement at an industry meeting within the next two months regarding the company's commitment to support game developers on Windows, whether they choose to develop for other platforms as well.
Microsoft assured the judge that its recently announced layoffs would not affect its ability to meet the objectives of the consent decree.
Correction 11:51 a.m. PST: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified a state of California lawyer as a U.S. Justice Department lawyer.
Stephanie Condon is a staff writer for CNET News focused on the intersection of technology and politics. She is based in Washington, D.C. E-mail Stephanie. 
This is not a test, it is a bribe. They were caught, now they deny.
I believe you would do yourself well to investigate before condemning.
Now Apple is immune from this, hey they control the whole experience, start to finish. But Linux and the netbook experience of such illustrate that once open up to that jungle any OS is going to bog down and ruin the experience for the end user.
Now Apple is immune from this, hey they control the whole experience, start to finish. But Linux and the netbook experience of such illustrate that once open up to that jungle any OS is going to bog down and ruin the experience for the end user.
Enquring minds want to know.
We all knew this was coming when Eric Schmidt and Google started making huge contrbutions to Obambi's campaign didn't we? This is a quid pro quo if ever I saw one. After trying to sell US Senate seats, the sleazy Obama Chicago mob in the White House continue to show their corruption yet again.
Try not to be such a moron when you leave comments. In addition, when responding to a comment, mention something having to do with the comment you're responding to.
The OP made good, legitimate points which show just how corrupt the past 8 years has been and, at least to anyone with more than a 3rd grade education, the point is recognized to make sense.
I was around before the Bush administration took office and I remember those complaints that were made and I remember them being investigated.
So, since you brought up the idea of bribe money, how much are you getting from MS for proving to be a complete tool?
Now instead of being your normal idiotic self, how about looking at the facts for a change, for once in your miserable life?
FACT: The Microsoft anti-trust is over, has been over for years.
FACT: The power drunk Penfield Jackson's attempt to break up Microsoft was THROWN OUT by The US Appeals Court, who STRONGLY rebuked Penfield Jackson for his totally unprofessional conduct during the trial, including imappropriate contacts with journalists and Microsofts rivals outside the court room DURING the trial.
FACT: We have a very competent judge who has competently overseen, and continues to oversee the implementaion of the final rulings of the Appeals Court.
FACT: After getting nowhere with the Justice Department to get them to somehow hold Microsoft down so Google(which is even more monopolistic than Microsoft ever was), even after countless attempts, Eric Schmidt and Google made MASSIVE contributions to Comrade Obama's campaign, clearly with the intention of getting a more pliable, more easily corruptible Obama Justice Deparment to be their lap dogs and poodle, and do Google's bidding and try and hold down Microsoft, while they kick them.
It's naive to believe otherwise.
Who is stopping Apple from selling their OS to anyone they want?
Is this the same Apple that deep axed all the OEM's who were selling Mac computer clones, because they were making better computers and selling them cheaper than Apple, and Apple couldn't stand the competition?
But hey, don't let the facts intefere with your ridiculous assertions.
Theres enough articles here on iPhone SDK complaints to fill a shelf.
I swear, did you fall off the STUPID train when you were born? Even as an extreme liberal, I know that for optional stuff, more competition is better.
And obviously, you don't understand Illinois politics. I used to live in the Chicago area, and Illinois' governor prior to Rod Blagojevich, who was George Ryan, got busted for selling commercial drivers licenses for bribes (among other things) and is now in prison... and he was a Republican.
Don't tell me a guy as well steeped in the corrupt Chicago Party Democratic Party politics like Rahm Emanuel was totally unaware that Obambi's saeat was being offered to the highest bidder, and wasn't part of that process. Don't be naive.
Kwasiowusu:
Thank you for boosting your local economy with panic-buying of tin foil. Please keep it up. Oh, and please listen to the full tapes when they are released, yes?
Not sure if they are crawling along.
Thier big mistake was the means in which they were re-enumerating the OEMs for their time and expense to perform these tests and improve their score (and/or compensate for the loss of bloatware dollars in improving performance by dropping boatware). You would thing that it would be in the OEMs best interest to have a fast computer to sell but I guess the dollars they get from adding bloatware was enough to justify the poor performance they were creating.
Apple isn't even related to this because they build their own hardware and need no similar incentive to make it work well with the OS. They don't include bloatware and need to incentive to remove it.
If a convicted murderer harms someone by accident, you have to question if that really is the case.
Convicted monopolist so what?
Google is a far worse monopolist than Microsoft ever was. The fact that they haven't been convicted of abusing their monopoly yet doesn't change the fact that Google abuses their monopoly more than any other company in this country right nowbut like OJ Simpson, they have been getting away with murder basically.
BTW, that example of yours is nonsense. When someone is convicted of murder, and penalties are imposed, they don't get tried and sentenced again for the same crime , and keep doing it over and over again, like the lunch mob Google and Apple fanatics keep suggesting.
"Eric Schmidt and Google made MASSIVE contributions to Comrade Obama's campaign, clearly with the intention of getting a more pliable, more easily corruptible Obama Justice Deparment to be their lap dogs and poodle, and do Google's bidding and try and hold down Microsoft, while they kick them.
It's naive to believe otherwise."
Wow, that's paranoia if I ever saw it... As far as a "...more pliable, more easily corruptible Obama Justice Department..." Compared to what? The Bush Administration? The administration that illegally wiretapped thousands of citizens; wrote memos supporting the use of torture; who sent people to foreign governments where they know the prisoners would be tortured and called it,'extraordinary rendition;' tortured prisoners - including minors - who they held without trials and without attorneys; who sold out public lands to corporations; passed increasingly anti-consumer laws and regulations; who leaked Valerie Plum's identity and blew her cover and her career in the CIA; and who commuted the sentences of two Border Patrol agents who shot an unarmed man in the back and then lied to cover it up?
It is hard to believe that any government could get more "corrupt[ed]" or "pliable" than the Bush administration.
Perhaps Obama is president, (Disclosure - I didn't vote for either Obama or McCain), because the American public didn't buy the tripe the GOP put out that the world would end, if we didn't elect a doddering old fool who picked a complete bimbo/airhead with delusions of grandeur as his vice-presidential running mate.
"Who is stopping Apple from selling their OS to anyone they want?"
Apple's business model works fine for them. Unlike M$, who seeks to further their business model by engaging in anti-competitive and monopolistic business practices.
"Is this the same Apple that deep axed all the OEM's who were selling Mac computer clones, because they were making better computers and selling them cheaper than Apple, and Apple couldn't stand the competition?"
And, your source for this is what? It seems to me that Apple wanted all the money generated by their business model. This is what we in the US call "intellectual property rights." Apple is not in the business of selling cheap 'clones.' Nor must Apple sell a cheap, generic computer just to satisfy people like you.
"Convicted monopolist so what?"
Past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior.
"BTW, that example of yours is nonsense. When someone is convicted of murder, and penalties are imposed, they don't get tried and sentenced again for the same crime , and keep doing it over and over again, like the lunch mob Google and Apple fanatics keep suggesting."
He clearly did not say that Microsoft should be re-prosecuted for the things that have already been adjudicated. It is being looked at for continuing anti-competitive and monopolistic business practices. Like I said, "Past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior."
"Be careful what you wish for. Your system might hickup once in a while with everything writting by one software hardware vendor (Apple)"
Interesting posit. I have used Apple's software for 25, (including large enterprise networks), and never had a "hickup" (sic). Users on PC/Windows seem to think computers have to break down and be difficult to manage to be 'good.'
"Microsoft has a challenge with all of the vendors involved. Anything goes wrong anywhere and Microsoft gets blamed."
Because they sell a sh*tty OS's that tries to be all things, to all people. So, why shouldn't M$ be blamed? If M$ business model controlled, or specified, certain hardware, they could make an OS that works and works well, (they could, but they probably wouldn't). Instead, they pander to people who want cheap, disposable PCs or people who think they are 'power users' just because they bought a "barebones" PC kit, added some cheap components and then loaded a totally generic OS that insists on 100% backwards compatible with all legacy software.
"So you want to break Microsoft into smaller pieces? That will just introduce more players and more things to go wrong."
No, the Justice Department and the Europeans just want Microsoft to stop their anti-competitive and monopolist business practices. I have never seen anyone suggest that M$ be broken up like the regional Bell operating companies that were formed after the breakup of Ma Bell.
"Apple is living the dream that IBM once had. Locked down tight."
The story of IBM is the story of Microsoft. IBM became the standard because "Nobody ever got fired" for specifying IBM. Every time IBM sold a computer, Microsoft got royalties. Once IBM established the "norm" for microcomputers, they set Microsoft up to control most of the OS market. Even if it was just because I.T. managers were afraid to change, even if they knew that Windows was an inferior product.
Apple is not "...living the dream that IBM once had." Apple controls 10% of the microcomputer market today. If IBM, and their partners at M$ only controlled 10% of the market and continued to fail to innovate, they would have died long ago. Yet, Apple continues to grow and innovate, while continuing to sell computers, iPhones and iPods that work, first time, every time, with a stable OS. The best Windows can do is, time after time, put out OS's of questionable quality.
"Control every aspect. The end product will be rock solid."
And, what, exactly, is wrong with this? You don't want an end product that is 'rock solid'? Are you saying you like products that continually break down and crash?
"Too bad the fed doesnt bust up that non-competivie Apple so that they can fail too."
Bust up Apple because its computers work? That's an interesting position.
Apple, at the most, controls 10% of the OS business. Microsoft controls... what, 85% of the OS business? Microsoft has engaged in anti-competitive and monopolistic business practices. So they deserve the attention of the anti-trust department of the Justice Department.
Apple, on the other hand, has not engaged in anti-competitive or monopolistic business practices and does not control an overwhelming majority of the OS market. So, where's the anti-trust?
"The obvious solution to higher quality is less players not more players."
Which is why Apple products work. While Windows continues to be loaded on PCs cobbled together using the cheapest possible parts... So, if what you say is true, M$ and it's associated PC manufacturers, are pushing a business model you think will lead to failure. Which is what is happening with Windows PCs..
As a veteran in the IT industry who has serviced thousands of computers, and is licensed by Dell, HP, and Sony, let me chime in with some 0.02.
OEM software is complete junk. All of it. Over several generations of PC lines across every major manufacturer, the OEM software has never been more than junk. You couldn't build a computer fast enough to handle all the crap that each OEM puts on their own machine.
Dell tries to pander every one of their half-ass services through your brand new machine, and nag you constantly about how *tip-top* your computer is running, while their poorly written code eats up all your expensive, $80-a-stick Dell original memory. Their printers actually install trial photo software(Corel Snapfire) that hold your photos ransom in exchange for purchasing their software, or otherwise figure out how the uninstaller works. HP computers are literally like trial-software time bombs; half your software is ticking down to expiration while nagging you the entire way. After 30-60 days, your software begins to systematically turn against you, lock out your office documents(Microsoft Office Trial), and threaten your computer with virus infections(Norton Anti virus). Sony is the worst offender of all, installing upwards of 80, yes e-i-g-h-t-y meaningless programs onto your fresh computer, along with a sea of trial software. The funny part? They offered to sell their computers without the extra crapware, but it cost an extra 'fee' to do so.
When the average Joe(or Jane) buys a new computer, and receives a crapware-infested machine, who do you think they blame for it? They blame Microsoft. Yes, that's right. The average person doesn't know anything about OEM bloatware or third party trial peroids; they simply bought a brand new Windows machine and it runs like crap. It might say Dell on the side of the case, but it will always say Windows when you login to your desktop, and that is what the average person pays attention to.
When Microsoft released Windows Vista, their biggest mistake was the hardware requirements. Were the requirements too low for Vista by itself? No. But were the requirements too low for Vista *and* all the extra OEM crap added on top? Hell yes, and the average consumer doesn't know the difference.
The reason why Macs have such a great image, is because Apple has control over the entire user experience. Third-party developers have to follow a very strict guideline when writing software for OSX, down to the Tee. Microsoft does not impose these restrictions on their own third-party developers, and it has been their worst mistake in company history: Rampant admin access, Titanic-sized memory leaks, decades-old legacy issues, a plethora of security holes and the infamous BSOD, all in part contributed by lazy programmers and hardware makers.
Microsoft is finally waking up and realizing their biggest mistake, and that is lack of control. They had absolutely no control over the development standards for Windows XP. Implementing UAC in Vista, annoying as it was, became a big step in reversing the bad habits of unrestricted admin access. Microsoft needs to go a step further; to hold OEMs and other third-party developers accountable for writing crappy code, and enforce a higher standard for their O/S.
There is no conspiracy here. Microsoft is offering an incentive for OEMs that are willing to drop their bad habit of crappy bloatware, and hold themselves to a higher standard. Introducing less quantity, and higher quality software onto OEM machines = a better Windows experience, and that is a win for both Microsoft and the consumer. We should be embracing this.
0.02
Da Worfster
And this is funny because??? You know Dell subsidizes the cost of PC by adding all that crap. They sell the use of new PC's to people to distribute the crapware thus making money on every new PC sold. They pass on a portion of this to the end-users to keep their prices lower then others. You honestly think Dell got to the #1 spot by selling stuff the same as it's competition? Any company who stands to LOSE money if they do something will try to make it up. It's not even a question if you want crapware removed from a new DELL you'd get the discount removed too hense they add more money onto the PC.
According to Dictionary.com, a "monopoly" is: exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices."
M$ controls about 85% of the market for microcomputer operating systems. Apple controls about 10%. So, how do you figure that Apple is "by its nature monopolistic"?
"Controlling every phase of their "empire""
According to Merriam-Webster, an "empire" is: "something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control." Apple does not have an empire, it has loyal customers. M$ controls 85% of the OS market in the ENTIRE WORLD. M$ uses monopolistic and anti-competitive business practices that tend to produce a "single domination" over the microcomputer OS business.
"...through roughhanded and cruel methods that would make any dictator proud."
Perhaps you would care to share how you know that Apple uses "roughhanded (sic) and cruel methods that would make any dictator proud."
"No you see Apple is so much a closed sustem they by American standards are doomed too fail."
Yet, they continue to increase their market share. They continue to innovate and create new and better tools for managing information. M$ doesn't have to innovate, because they have about 85% of the microcomputer OS business and can force crap like Vista off on a public who they have led to believe has no choice, but to accept.
If "...Apple is so much a closed sustem (sic) they by American standards are doomed to failure," then so is Chevrolet, Toyota, Audi, Dodge, Daimler Benz, Frigidare, Sony, Dyson, et cetera doomed to fail. After all, they control every part that does into the products they sell and force people to buy their product through planned obsolescence.
"MS is so open they allow their code to be prodded and twisted into many forms that really becomes another entity initself"
M$ code is "so open they allow their code" be (sic) changed." Since when is Windows open source? M$ guards their code like a sow bear protects her cubs. M$ uses massive amounts of money either to buy up innovations that others make, (MS-DOS was not written at M$, they bought it), or litigate their competitors into non-existance.
It is "prodd[ing]" and "twist[ing]" of M$'s tightly controlled and jealously guarded code that results in its widespread incompatibility with a variety of systems.
"No look deeper MT there is the answer you seek and it is not on this path of degrading an open aggressive company like MS."
M$ can do whatever they like, they have a near monopolistic grasp on the microcomputer OS business. Our society has decided, through the government we chose, that monopolies are a bad thing. Therefore we have anti-trust laws. Obeying those laws will not, in anyway, limit M$'s ability to make profit.
I noticed that you describe M$ as an "open (sic) aggressive company." You do not describe it as an innovative or open company. Your characterization of M$ as "aggressive" fits right in with their desire to control the microcomputer OS market with anti-competitive and monopolistic business practices. This where M$'s energy goes, not to R&D, not to promote innovation and not towards refining their business practices so they do not violate the US's anti-trust laws.
- by MTGrizzly January 29, 2009 12:07 PM PST
- @xcal78
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(46 Comments)"You know Dell subsidizes the cost of PC by adding all that crap."
Dell receives subsidies from the publishers of the crapware that they put on their computer, not the other way around.
"They sell the use of new PC's to people...]
I was under the impression that Dell sold hardware, not "the use of new PC's."
"...to distribute the crapware thus making money on every new PC sold. They pass on a portion of this to the end-users to keep their prices lower then others."
I guess you have a choice - either pay more to buy a computer that doesn't have crapware on it and actually works or get a computer that doesn't work because of the crapware. Interesting choice. Would you buy an automobile that presented such a choice? I doubt many would...
"You honestly think Dell got to the #1 spot by selling stuff the same as it's competition?"
Take the case off your Dell, it is made the same as the competition - generic parts that are cheap. That is the mantra of PC manufacturers - buy cheap, sell cheap, don't worry about your customers' user experience or whether the computer you sold them actually does what you said it would. Dell's quality control might - and that's a big might - be better than other manufacturer's. In fact service maybe the one thing that differentiates Dell from its competitors.
"Any company who stands to LOSE money if they do something will try to make it up."
If any company - Dell, Apple, M$, et cetera - fails to deliver what their customers want, they will - sooner or later - go out of business. Apparently Dell and other PC manufactures would rather put crapware on their computers than engineer a product that produces the best user experience and value.
"It's not even a question if you want crapware removed from a new DELL you'd get the discount removed too hense they add more money onto the PC."
Basically, it sounds a like most PC users are using extortion methods to make money on their PC's. Either give us money to take the crapware off your system, or we will sell you a system that doesn't work...