EU rules on Microsoft antitrust appeal: Bad news for Microsoft
By Thomas Ricker 
posted Sep 17th 2007 3:29AM
posted Sep 17th 2007 3:29AM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
All over $688 fine?
How much has been spent on legal fees?
The interest on the legal fees over 15 months would probably cover the fine... maybe I'm missing a piece of the puzzle here but can someone please help me understand this?
I think they probably meant to say $688 million.
multiply that by 1,000,000 and you'll be closer to an accurate figure. Hopefully Thomas will rub the sleep out of his eyes and correct it soon.
Okay, now that makes more sense... updated to $688 million.
Bill will have to look under a few lounge cushions to find that...
$688 fine? Why that's not bad at all! ;)
At $688 you can't afford NOT to get charged with antitrust :D
Finally.
Also, In Before lol Europe.
did engadget forget to mention it was over 600 million rather then just 600?
Where does that money go?
*Puts on shades*
Why do you want to know?
It goes to farmers in Bulgaria.
And to cover travel expenses for school kids like me to do exchange programs, yey!
The money is used by he EU to prop up their socialist aspirations at the expense of foreign corporations. Apple is next. EU gotta eat! After all it's all about "fair competition" like the kind Airbus enjoys with billions in EU cash handouts to keep their bloated company afloat.
So, as I sit here typing this in FireFox on Linux I will whine about how MS makes me run their stuff. Oh wait, they don't.
So you see, this has nothing to do with competition other than MS has incomptent competitors and they have to whine to the EU for hand-outs.
Well I'm certainly hoping Microsoft fines the EU for a billion, for wasting their time and questioning their superiority!
Actually, the court has only ruled about the first of two fines which is "only" $497 million. The second dispute for the remaining fine will be ruled on later this year.
It's two different isues - the first (which today is ruled about) talked about offering a free mediaplayer built in the OS being unfair towards competitors like Real; the second which will be ruled about later is initially about a complaint from Sun about reveiling standards on Microsofts servers to make connectability for competing alternatives easier.
Firn - the ruling today covers both WMP and the server protocols - there isn't separate cases for both. I presume you are confusing this with the additional fine of EUR 280.5 million Microsoft received for its failure to comply with the requirement, in the 2004 antitrust decision, to provide complete and accurate interface specifications, so as to allow other companies to make their products interoperable with Microsoft PCs and servers.
Ah, indeed - thank you for the clarification then!
Ha ha, this is the pot calling the kettle black!
European Commission & corruption go hand in hand. No less than seven high ranking individuals being 'dismissed' in the last 12 months after investigation by the Audit Committee, and that was just the ones dumb enough to get caught!
Sure, Microsoft isn't whiter than white by any stretch of the imagination, but one thing is for sure - if Microsoft do have to pay up then you can guarantee that $690 million will NOT be going to the needy in Europe!
wow, seems like you're just throwing stuff out there to make yourself look/sound smart when you don't even make much sense...
1) "pot calling kettle black"? one is to do with corruption and the other is to do with antitrust (look it up, mate), they're quite different.
2) and even if they're 'the same thing', doesn't the fact that the audit committee 'investigated' and caught them out shows the fact that they ARE against 'such crimes' and they will do something to stop it?
Hmmm, so one 'less than wholesome' organization pursuing another 'less than wholesome' organization isn't a case of "the pot calling the kettle black" because you want to split the differences between the dictionary definitions of corruption and anti-trust.
Now who's trying to look clever?
Perhaps you should read and try to understand the comment. It is the European Commission who are prosecuting Microsoft. The European Audit Committee is a separate and independant body who are prosecuting European Commission officials, so remind me again - who are the ones in this equation who are without guilt? The irony of an organization prosecuting another when they themselves are (repeatedly and successfully) being prosecuted is obviously lost on you.
ooooo the second guy got OWNED...
and the winner by way of technical mumbo jumbo knockout.....
NEEDLEGUN!!!
*philosophy books start raining down from the heavens*
Please stop speaking about things you very clearly know nothing about.
I'm glad Europe has the balls to stand up to Microsoft and other big business
Amen.
Right, and let's see how vigorously they go after European corporations.
They already do; there has been lots of European companies getting fines for similar misconduct. And the fines have been higher, up to 10% of annual global reveune, which for MS would have equalled $5 billions.
@iczer
Let's see about those EU companies...
- 279 milion euros fine for four beer brewers (all Dutch btw..., I want my money back!)
- 216.91 milion euros fine for three chemical companies
- 992 miljon fine for four elevator builders
- 396,6 miljon fine for Siemens (of a total sum 750,7 miljon over 11 companies)
- 344 miljon for four plexiglass companies
Since MS is a very, very large company I don't see your point.
@Rik
So then you're saying that the EU is equal opportunity when it comes to fining anything that remotely touches the private sector. *whew* I'm sure glad you cleared that up. And here I was under the mistaken impression they just liked to take on foreign corporations, but it turns out to be worse, they attack even their own companies.
Lovely.
Give it another six months and the ECJ will pipe up with something like "why haven't you paid us yet? We're still hanging on the telephone waiting for your call Billy! xx"
(sorry, Blondie came on the radio as I was typing ;)
All this prancing and posturing is pointless, makes me wonder why I even bother paying my taxes sometimes if all that happens is that the EU takes a cut from our GDP and just goes and spends it on stupid things like chauffeured cars for their MEPs. Nobody really cares about this - I just wish MS would release a new Windows Update which'd revert ActiveX plugins to how they behaved before that company sued them for patent breach (I hate having to click or hit the spacebar to make some Flash work when I'm using other machines, and Opera has the same problem). THAT's the kind of thing we care about!
Uncle Sam: so this means war....?
E.U:..yep!
Uncle Sam: ..ooh...we can do war! right W?
Euro fascists...
Actually, many label the European Commission as socialists. Calling them fascists would be incorrect.
"Calling them fascists would be incorrect."
Actually, the term "fascist" is quite fitting for the EU. Read the definition and you'll see why.
Yay! Besides, I wouldn't let Microsoft to sell its products anymore :)
I don't like the bias in this article, when it speaks about 'additional insult'. This means implicitly that engadget endorses monopolistic exploitation by Microsoft, just because it affects an American company.
There are clear rules in Europe about competitive behavior and they are very fair. If Microsoft wishes to serve that market, let them follow those rules. The same rules apply to European companies, so all the comments about Euro fascists, USA being treated wrong are a bit short sighted.
"There are clear rules in Europe about competitive behavior and they are very fair. If Microsoft wishes to serve that market, let them follow those rules. The same rules apply to European companies, so all the comments about Euro fascists, USA being treated wrong are a bit short sighted."
The rules may be fair, but I question the politics behind the entire affair. There were times during these proceedings where it seemed that no matter what Microsoft did to address their concerns it was never good enough. Now, I have not see the documentation itself, but I have to wonder if this entire thing is being held up on technicalities in order to attack a foreign company that might be viewed as having too much power.
@ iczer2 ^ ^ "this entire thing is being held up on technicalities in order to attack a foreign company that might be viewed as having too much power."
And that's a bad thing? Personally, I disagree. Look, MS were caught out. Now they pay the price, just like many EUROPEAN companies do.
And a company monopolising anything is extremely bad for any industry in my opinion.
BTW, if they would have paid right away in 2004, Microsoft would have saved USD 70 million, as the dollar dropped from 0.81 to 0.71 $/€
They did pay right away; the money was transferred to a frozen bank account after the first court ruled, awaiting the following processes.
Its not enough. Microshit must be bankrupted and paralyzed once and for all!
see thats a bit of an ignorant comment, seeing as to how MS is a global presence (PC's and Cell Phones') and most servers and government computers use MS OS's, you'd pretty much be asking to cripple the worlds communication and banking, sure u got linux and macs but ive yet to see and apple\linux server in federal offices. i mean look at this for a loose example of "ridding MS"
http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/22/alaska-department-of-revenue-vaporizes-38-billion-account/
Is this /still/ about windows media player? I can see why Real et. al might be pissed about it, but I've never thought they had a leg to stand on. Now that everyone and their mum's got an iPod and a phone which plays mp3s people simply EXPECT media playing capability straight out of the box, just like they'd expect a car to come with a stereo. Real complaining to Microsoft for bundling WMP would be like Sony complaining to Ford for pre-installing non-Sony stereos in their cars!
Real's real problem (excuse the wordplay) is that they simply made a bad product. I haven't gone anywhere near Realplayer in years - it might be great now for all I know, but I really don't care - as last I saw it it was a rubbish, bloated piece of crap full of adverts and system-tray "messages" which tries to take over your machine.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
First of all, yeah, people expect media playback features from the iPod and iPhone straight out of the box because media playback is one of the *primary functions* of those devices. Windows is (or should be) an operating system, not a media player.
And while people expect a car to come with a stereo, nobody buys a car strictly so that they can listen to music. The fact that the stereo comes with the car is an added feature. In order to make the WMP -> car stereo comparison work, you'd have to imagine that Ford installs only Ford stereos in their cars, and that, while you can install an additional stereo from another manufacturer in your car, you can't ever actually *remove* the Ford stereo, as it is somehow tightly integrated with the rest of the car's electronics. Also, the Ford stereo would have to be able to play back music that is recorded in a proprietary Ford format; other manufacturers who want to be able to play back or record in this format would have to pay a licensing fee to Ford, so even if you buy and install another stereo in your car, Ford would make money off of that, too.
It doesn't matter whether or not Real's product was crap. The fact is that what Microsoft's doing by bundling WMP is making it *more difficult* for competitors to enter the market. And let's face it, spending the time and money to develop a product to compete with a media player that is already available on *EVERY* Windows install in the world is *NOT* a very good business decision, as the odds of making a profit are slim, even if your product is absolutely amazing in every way. People are lazy, and getting them to switch away from what they already have is difficult if it requires any amount of effort. Why do you think there are so many people who still use the default ring tone on their mobile phones? Laziness.
(and really, if you developed a product that was superior to WMP, Microsoft would just buy you out and incorporate your technology into WMP anyway. That's how they work.)
Andy S.
I understand and I agree that it does make it harder for other brands to enter the market, but also it makes it harder for the consumers to get their computer set up to use. Based upon this idea that MS is being sued for... one would then conclude that this ruling would and could apply to anti-virus software, automatic backups, web browsers, cd/dvd burning software, picture viewing and editings, etc. It's highly unlikely but what they could end up doing is causing people's machines to literally come with Windows.. then you have to get either have to go out and download/buy or install everything else which isnt very easy for the consumer. Sure WMP sucks and so does IE, but there is no reason for it not to be standard.
If people dont like it they can go out and buy something else. I guess to avoid all of this instead of being stubborn MS could have just pulled those applications out of the windows OS installer disks and put those onto a seperate disk that the user then has the choice to install or not... I'm sure the cost of all those extra CD's is a lot less expensive than the current fines.
I wonder what the EU will do to Apple and rip apart all the nice integration that Apple does with iLife.
"Why do you think there are so many people who still use the default ring tone on their mobile phones? Laziness."
So by your logic, mobile phones should not be allowed to come with a default ring tone?
No, because you always have a choice to choose a different phone company with a different default ring tone. There's no choice here. MS made sure of that when they promise to sell Windows cheaper to clients that don't use ___ software and sell their proprietary OS with proprietary media interfaces and proprietary APIs and proprietary office products with proprietary document formats. If MS is forced to comply with open standards, it would kill them because they'd have to compete with free software and Apple.
I agree- Real Player is unused because it is poorly designed and add-incumbered. But, I am willing to bet teh here in the States, that nearly half of the avid music users rely on iTunes or Winamp. Is that really a stranglehold on the market? Apple created a decent product(iTunes) and they are doing just fine.
Besides, what consumers are complaining that because MS Paint is included in Windows, they cant get good competetive graphics software? All someone has to do is create a better product, which many companies have done. Real has an open enough market, but needs a better product if they want chance. They dont need half a billion dollars in fines assesed to tehir competitiion.
what vitriol! THANK YOU, Microsoft and Bill Gates, for presenting the world with your incredible technology. You might have stubbed a few toes along the way but your sacrifice over the years has meant a better world for all of us. I say 'Thanks'.
I cant believe all this bullshit thats been happening. Google crying over instant-search. Real crying over Media player. Win users always have a choice. They can install Winamp, Bloaty RealPlayer, iTunes...anything and windows supports it fine. And if they really want to remove the windows media player component, they can do so via the add/ remove. Realnetworks, should blame themselves over a sub-standard product.
If you build a better product, users will patronize it. Firefox is such a great example.
"they can do so via the add/ remove"
Actually, you can't. It took a special install of windows to totally remove Media Player on my machine.
Firefox is a great example indeed. It's been a clearly superior product for three years now, yet IE is still being used by 3 times more people. That demonstrates just how hard it is for companies to compete against MS, even with superior products. Realplayer may be crap, but who knows what great products like Firefox we're all missing out on because of the MS monopoly? That's why this is great news.
I think you might find that Firefox has been well and truely surpassed by IE7 in terms of quality and that is why it is still the number one product :)
IE7, which randomly crashes without any notice (that error reporting window)? IE7, which will not recover your previous session when it crashes, unlike Firefox? Number one? I only use it out of necessity.
uhhh, bob, IE7 is in no way surpassing firefox... it's still rubbish, and from a design perspective it STILL DOESN'T conform to web standards. some of the most basic of basics. it's buggy, security holes larger file size, slower... but sure. better somehow.. I guess because they finally added tabs?
Why so they hate Microsoft so much?
I mean, why didn't they did the same to Apple for including QuickTime, iTunes, Safari etc. in Mac OS X?
Kinda unfair...
Actually companies like Apple with "controlling" software like iTunes, who have also changed their tactics in the last 9 yrs since the trial begun are in potential trouble. Given apple's latest tactics, e.g.itunes checksum that potentially limits competing software wrt iPod usage, I can see them being next on the block..after Intel. anyway you look at the ruling given the present state of affairs it's bad for ALL big business, but good for us!
I can remove Quicktime and Safari from my Mac and still use it as a computer.
You cannot remove IE or WMP from Windows.
simple - Microsoft are being taken to court in violation of an EU Treaty Article that forbids abuse of a dominant position. Apple do not have a dominant position hence they're not in trouble.
Hundreds of millions of euros in legal fees later, European customers have won the priveledge of owning EU comissioned copies of Vista that include NO WMP. Wow, they get to purchase a stand-alone media player! Bet they're really happy with the "choice" they have now!
Seriously, many europeans are jealous that Microsoft's Income is equal to the GDP of all EU (15, pre-expansion) countries minus Germany. I live in Europe, I see this jealousy all the time.
All these state sponsored projects to "compete" with Google (search initiative), Boeing (Airbus misguided jumbo-jet project), Microsoft (Linux sponsorship) seem like an example of the severe envy and inadequacy Europeans feel when faced with solid companies being "too" competive for the cushy 4-day work week European.
Anyway, 866m is not a small chunk of cash, it's unfair, and unfounded. However, Microsoft still makes the world's best software, and even 866m will not change that anytime soon. Bet that makes the Europeans even more upset.
It had to come, of course.. Take your anti-European crap elsewhere, please. Because we like to have a free market that actually WORKS doesn't mean we don't like companies that do well. That'd be a paradox. Although in the end we do value people more than we value companies; anything else would be quite mad.
The bottom line: They're our rules, and if MS wants to play here, they've got to play by them, just like everyone else.
"europeans are jealous that Microsoft's Income is equal to the GDP of all EU"
I believe Europe's GDP, excluding Germany, is about 10,000,000 million USD or 10,000 billion USD.
Do you really believe Microsoft earns more than 10,000 billion USD per year?
microsoft makes the world's most monopolistic software! and it's only because they gave it away for free initially that they got a foothold and later a stranglehold over the business market.
microsoft had the most shady business practices outside bentonvillle, and the only thing positive i can say about bill gates is 'the bill&melinda gates foundation'
I've heard this exact bullshit spouted on engadget before. No, Microsoft don't make anything like even a tiny fraction of the GDP of Europe. Are you "V", the moron from this post?
http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/01/european-commissioner-gives-microsoft-one-week-to-respond-to-360/
Ironically, I was actually with you for the first couple of sentences- until I realised you were being serious. You really think Europeans care about this? I'm only one of them, but I honestly couldn't give a rat's arse what Microsoft do with their media player or how much they earn, and I don't know a single person who does.
Yes - these statistics are incorrect. I saw them on the net somewhere and took them for fact. My bad - I admit.
Anyway. Thank you for checking my statistics so thoroughly. All of you. Really.
wilkmd,
I couldn't find the statistics you mentioned, but I seriously doubt, that it's right. :-)
EU25 GDP: about 15 000 billion USD
Microsoft revenue: about 50 billion USD
Of course this is not EU15 GDP, but the new countries are not so rich...
So jealousy probably did not play a great role here
er... no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29
get your facts straight.
— World 66,228,669
— European Union 13,881,051
1 United States 13,020,861
The only countries in the European Union whose GDP is smaller than Microsoft would be some of the newest EU members from the East as Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania and then the tiny tiny Luxembourg. And I give them ten/twenty years for them to be fully developed nations.
"Seriously, many europeans are jealous that Microsoft's Income is equal to the GDP of all EU (15, pre-expansion) countries minus Germany. I live in Europe, I see this jealousy all the time."
Microsoft :
Revenue : US $51.12 billion (2007)
Net income : US $14.06 billion (2007)
Italy GDP : GDP (PPP) $1.727 trillion (2006 est.)
France GDP (PPP) $1.871 trillion (2006)
I really doubt you live in Europe.
I have to say two things about Microsoft, monopolies, and bundling of software:
1. There are choices - Windows, OS X, Linux. You don't have to get Windows if you don't want it.
2. What kind of quality OS doesn't have it's own applications right out of the box? Whether it's awful or wonderful, it's at least better than nothing. And if people like something else, then they can download it. Windows would support it.
Like iTunes for instance. You don't have to use WMP (although WMP 11 is like the best).
To me, I think it's ridiculous.
I totally agree. People DO have a choice, and they overwhelmingly choose Microsoft Windows. If I go to the store and CHOOSE to pay for an operating system I sure as hell EXPECT it to come with everything a twenty-first century operating system should include... and that's definitely a media player!
If I don't like the built-in media player, Microsoft should ensure that their OS allows me to install another one of my choosing. Not doing so would be against competition... but not giving me a media player AT ALL is just ridiculous! Frankly, I'm glad I don't buy my operating system in Europe.
Michael, I totally agree. Let's take Linux for example. All of the Linux OSes come bundled with media players. Is this anticompetitive in accordance with European Commission rules? Yes it would be. However, this gets overlooked because there is no centralized company that controls Linux, so it would be hard to go after that. IMO, this is just hungry fat cats going after hungry fat cats. I've always hated the EC more than Satan himself because while the EC claim to be fair and balanced and supportive of competition, it always turns out that they stifle competition by forcing companies to follow their laws and rules. This causes money that would be spent on R&D (speculation for some corps) to instead go to legal fees. Then, to cover their expenses, the corp has to raise the price of its product.
agreed Michael!!! what does the EU want? a world where windows comes without even a file browser or start bar?? because other people make those too??!!!
I guess it's ok for linux to include those, and I guess it's ok for apple to bundle itunes + safari.. it's apparently just not ok when ms does it because...
if I was bill gates I'd walk in there and punch the commission in the throat.
Ahh. Come on now. I was just egging you guys on.
Anyway. Thank you for checking my statistics so thoroughly. All of you. Really.
So Apple can include both Quicktime and iTunes, but Microsoft can't include Windows Media Player? Whatever EU. Whatever.
One thing that nobody mentioned is that Microsoft has been required to open up the source code for WINDOWS. That is the greatest challenge Microsoft faces, not the fact they can't pre-install Windows Media Player. That is also the reason why they fought so hard against the decision. Do you really think they had such a fight because of a Media Player installed on Windows? They would have taken that out any day, whereas they don't want to publish Windows's Source code.
The "closeness" of the source code is what the European Union has blamed to Microsoft as being "a monopolistic practice". Regardless of how you see matters, the following is true:
- Microsoft can create better software for Windows because they have access to information about the OS that no one has. And this is "unfair competition"
- Microsoft has a de-facto monopoly in terms of OS. The European Union thinks that when markets reach such a level of dominance by only one player it is time to "restore" some competition. Regardless of wheter such a monopoly was actually acquired through innovation.
- Microsoft HAS A DOMINANT POSITION, one from which it can extend to other domains easily and dominate them, because they can rely on interoperability between their system and others. This however, has proved itself to be a wrong understanding since Microsoft has failed to dominate many of the markets it entered, even if it had very strong advantages (Mobile phone OS's, game consoles, portable music players)
It is the European philosophy, like it or not, that the State (and the EU) are not simply "setting the framework" and standing by in economy. They are an active part, seeking to prevent distortions. Hence they intervene. I believe the US also has "anti trust" regulation, albeit with a different underlying philosophy (much less "intervention oriented").
I personally think some of the conclusions of the EU are far streched and not understandable. But the basic problem about Microsoft's monopoly in OS's and what it means in terms of competition and innovation has to be analyzed.
You cannot say that they are the best, because their position truly prevents other people from marketing their own OS's and be successful at that (think about all the agreements they have with manufacturers and the fact with such a monopoly entry barriers are set so high that no company will seriously think about entering the OS market).
In a dynamic and evolving market such as computers it is interesting to notice that the only market in which no other company has entered in the latest 20 years is OSs...
Then again, Microsoft understands the market and is a good player. I think regulations are fine, but fines are NOT! (particularly in the mentioned amount).
Yes I am european, but I am outside of the EU...
Just to back up what I wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6998272.stm
And in particular: (QUOTE)
"The 2004 ruling ordered Microsoft to ensure its products could operate with other computer systems by sharing information with rival software companies.
It was also ordered to make a version of its Windows operating system available without Microsoft's Media Player software.
Monday's ruling upheld that order, saying it was "beyond dispute" that Microsoft obliged customers to buy its Media Player software along with the operating system.
Last year, Microsoft was told to pay daily fines adding up to 280.5 million euros over a six-month period, after it failed to adhere to the 2004 decision.
Michael Reynolds, of law firm Allen & Overy, said the important thing was "that these principles of the judgement will not just apply to the Microsoft case".
"They will apply to any dominant company that engages in the same behaviour. It's not just about Microsoft," said Mr Reynolds.
"It provides legal certainty now as to what you can and you can't do in relation to information you have to make available to companies who compete in your environment to enable them to be a viable competitor," he added.
"The court has upheld a landmark commission decision to give consumers more choice in software markets," Ms Kroes said in a statement.
"Microsoft must now comply fully with its legal obligations to desist from engaging in anti-competitive conduct." "(END QUOTE)
Microsoft was never asked to publish its source code to anyone, they were asked for proper documentation of the ASAP protocols : http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060125-6048.html
@SymbiX
... ASAP = As Soon As Possible... It is not the name of what they had to disclose, it means they had to disclose it immediately.
Furthermore: YES, MICROSOFT WAS ASKED TO OPEN THE SOURCECODE. The ars-technica mentioned article is pretty self-explanatory on that:
(QUOTE)
But after yesterday's news that the US Department of Justice is also frustrated with Microsoft's progress in documenting its server protocols, the software giant seems inclined to do whatever it takes to resolve the cases. To that end, Microsoft has just announced that they will do exactly what they were opposed to last month: license the Windows source code in Europe.
Smith himself announced that Microsoft would license the source code because "the source code is the best documentation." The company recently claimed to be having real difficulty finding qualified people to document the protocols, and gave this as the reason for their slow performance in responding to the EU and the DOJ. (Though certainly plausible, it is a bit strange, given that Microsoft much have copious internal documentation of all this material, or it wouldn't do them a bit of good to have coded it into Windows in the first place.) Given this difficulty, and the fact that a large fine is staring them in the face, it appears that Microsoft took the path of least resistance and will now allow companies a direct look at the code.
(END QUOTE)
You have to excuse my english, i didnt mean of the ASAP protocols, i meant their server protocols ASAP, aka as soon as possible, my bad.
Now if i read this correctly, it says they were asked to proper documentation (Back in December, when the EU first announced that it would fine Microsoft €2 million per day if it did not properly DOCUMENT its server protocols...Smith himself announced that Microsoft would license the source code because "the source code is the best documentation.") if i understand correctly, they (microsoft) decided to license their source code because its better that way, not that they were asked to do so directly.
"The court also agreed that the Commission wanted Microsoft to share only the system protocols, and not its source code." -http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9779499-7.html
@Matteo
It looks to me like the EU wants Microsoft to release specs on how other software developers can develop their own domain controller products as well as how to integrate into a multi-master model which includes replication inside of an active directory.
@billybob. its essentially the source code for FSMO roles which is what they mean by "system protocols".
not over but one step closer to finally playing for bringing us shitty software!
Anyone that thinks linux is a choice is an idiot, people dont read instructions and most things attached to linux are way to complicated.
I, personally, don't like where this is going. Why would it be a good thing if we had to choose between 8 different OS's each of which could be limited to the software/games they could run or in some cases the hardware they could use. The industry seems to have a hard enough time getting hardware and software to work correctly for one platform. Secondly, why should a company be forced to share their own source code for software that is entirely theirs. I like the approach that Microsoft has taken with the 64-bit version of Vista, no company outside of Microsoft should have access to the kernel code simply as a matter of security. On the hand I think Microsoft should help the security companies by working with them to integrate their software. Consumer choice is a good thing but it seems to me that if companies had to create software and drivers for multiple platforms we would be likely to see less choice per OS.
@System48
I differ.. Let's make an example with 8 OSs
1) the key has to be interoperability and the presence of standards, and the knowledge of each other. Therefore this OSs, would be perfectly able to interoperate (as you can nowadays do with a LAN connecting Linux, MacOS and Windows). Softwares would be also able to make files that work with every OS.
2) the security issue you mentioned is false... Having a landscape with 8 Os is much more secure than having one single OS. I think it is pretty self explanatory.
3) if Microsoft publishes the source code, it would be not only in favour of the "evil doers" but also in favor of AntiVirus companies that could publish far better products and patch holes they are unaware of.
4) No everybody needs the same OS. As you might have noticed many people still are happily using Windows XP even on new machines. Some are using MacOS and others Linux. Needs are different, use is different... If I have to buy a computer for a secretary I don't need 90% of the stuff Windows or MacOS has... Why do I have to pay for it? Why does a secretary need DirectX 10 or the latest ATI driver?
5) Games. Look at the console landscape today. There are more OS powering these than there are powering computers (Wii, PS3, PSP, XboX 360). And everyone can choose. Some games are exclusive to a platforms but many are there for everyone. And this is what I call COMPETITION
6) Just like people can buy a Lexus, an Ford, a pickup, a minivan, a sedan or a convertible, they should also be able to buy the OS that suits them most.
That is my opinion, of course, not a "truth"...
But I think that sometimes, thinking also about the positive aspects of competition might help... You, however, also highlited some important dangers (OS copycats, security issues) which should also be adressed. But I think a monopoly is never ineherently more secure, on the contrary.. A multifaceted, healthy marketplace is what drives innovation and ultimately benefits customers.
@matteo
The console gaming point is really stupid. When it comes to console gaming you can do more with less because its not like you have the same console with 40 different flavors of a video card, combined with 40 different flavors of a sound card. When you are developing games for a specific console you know that those consoles are going to have pretty much the same specs across the board. You don't get that luxury with a computer. More doesn't always mean better.
Choice is not always a good thing. Look at Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD thanks to "free choice" consumer end up losing because you either by two HD players or one really expensive less feature dual format player. Same with OS. "Oh I want to play WoW but *sigh* it only works with OS1 and I already spent $400 on OS2" yeah that will be a great thing for the consumer. God forbid you can expect to go into the store and buy something and simply have it work.
Unfortuantly all this case was I feel was a way for the EU to make some political ripples and it was purely politcal. No matter what MS did they were never going to be happy. They whined MS included WMP in their OS ok so MS made a EU version without the WMP and no one bought not because it was poorly marketed but because no one really cared. IF the EU really tries to make MS open its windows source code I would not be shocked if MS simply pulled out of EU.
If more people used Linux as a gaming OS, then more games would support it. As for Blu-ray vs HD-DVD, two formats competing for users will drive prices down. If there would be only format, that is owned by a single corp. there won't be competition and the PS3 wouldn't have been sold for less than it took to make it.
Competition is good, if you disagree you're a commie.
Also the EU:s idea was to remove WMP from their OS, not make a useless EU edition. And Microsoft backing out of EU? And missing out on a market as big as the US where people actually BUY their copy of Windows?
engadget, you sicken me, when i type linus into your search engine, the first sponnsored liknk is geththefacts, a microsoft site denouncing linux distro's as rubbish compared to windows, as a site thats supposed to be unbiased, this seems very misleading
hmmm...here are your choices
Linux: pain in the ass to learn, video drivers usually have to get recompiled everytime a kernel update comes out, not many choices of business software besides servers. come to think of it, it should only be used to run servers, you're just asking for trouble on client machines. linux = pain in the ass
OSX: if you're willing to pay out of the ass for hardware, be my guest. still not as much choice for business software, unless your business is graphic design or something similar.
Windows: this is what the world runs on, regardless if the EU likes it or not. most choice for ANYTHING.
"yay we're the EU...lets sue all the big bad american companies!!!" get over it. i think MS should threaten to leave that market entirely. lets see how they function with no support from MS. hell they wanna be different, let em be different.
If you'd have a clue what you speak about, you'd know that there are tons of business apps for OS X. In fact, I can do my job (Windows Network Admin) from within OS X without a problem.
And if you bothered to compare like hardware with like hardware, you'd see that at most Apple's hardware is $0-200 more expensive than a QUALITY machine from a teir-1 vendor.
150 million € fine to Telefonica in Spain
@ Peppie :
Linux is almost always free of charges, doesnt hold the majority of the market for consumers, includes usually more than 2 media players which are also free and easily removed or not even installed if you dont want to.
If microsoft made their media player and internet browser optional i dont think that EU would mind.
I'm sorry you see it that way, but in the same sense, lets allow every corporation free with no laws and regulations to follow and see what might happen, how about that ?
microsoft are shit's anyhow.Look at the faulty xbox360 they deserve to get fined. Lol
microshit, can afford it, its just pocket change to them.
A wrong decision by the EU. I heard one BBC Comentator say "The Commission hopes less people will use Windows as a result of this ruling" So rather than free competition, the EU is being a bully to get people to be 'hip' with OS X or Linux (both of which bundle media players that are SUPRISE not RealPlayer).
As for source code, they own the copyright. I think thats final. I use open source software for my websites etc and contribute from time to time, but I do understand that if someone wants to keep their work under lock and key it is their perogative. Next Toyota will be forced to show Ford how to be 'competive' since Toyota is the market leader.
Microsoft has tried to comply with the Commissions ruling, but nothing so far has been good enough for them. If stupid company A thinks the book is to complex they complain and Microsoft hasn't complied. Appearently they want Microsoft to actually do the work of implementation for their competitors rather then give technical guidelines (as Microsoft has done) that are obviously techinical and not to understandable to anyone but rather specialized trained people.
No, they are overly complicated. Have you looked at the difference between the ODF and OOXML docs? Microsoft made their documents and standard overly complex so that other companies would have a hard time implementing it without proprietary Microsoft APIs.
Here's good reading on why OOXML is broken from the start: http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/ooxml_is_defective.asp
American money going to a corrupt EU bureaucracy trying to gain a superior position in the world, not through doing great things for it's people or the world, but by building a massive bureaucracy which lowers the standard of living for everyone is a VERY BAD THING. Hopefully the citizens of Europe will WAKE UP and see how their rights have been destroyed and their money stolen by this nefarious organization.
...One BBC Comentator said "The Commission hopes less people will use Windows as a result of this ruling"
Can we say extreme bias and corruption?
"Jake @ Sep 17th 2007 9:32AM
I totally agree. People DO have a choice, and they overwhelmingly choose Microsoft Windows. If I go to the store and CHOOSE to pay for an operating system I sure as hell EXPECT it to come with everything a twenty-first century operating system should include... and that's definitely a media player!
If I don't like the built-in media player, Microsoft should ensure that their OS allows me to install another one of my choosing. Not doing so would be against competition... but not giving me a media player AT ALL is just ridiculous! Frankly, I'm glad I don't buy my operating system in Europe."
Dead on! If I go to a store, who else has put a system in there? Sun? Apple? The only one that you can occasionally find in a store is Red Hat which is crap for consumers. Nobody should whine if they can't deliver. Apple bundles and locks in hardware with its operating system which is much more offensive, along with bundling a media player and crappy browser that never really goes away. Oh if you want to use and iPod you HAVE to use iTunes. Microsoft never made me use anything, not explorer, not media player. It's there if I want it is all. Microsoft lets me use Apple iTunes and Mozilla Firefox just fine. The problem with not having competition is the competition completely sucks. If any of those losers were actually better, then people might actually have a choice and all of the products would improve.
The reason people don't use Real's products is that they're crap, and nests of spyware and nagware to boot.
And many, many people choose not to use Media Player...do the EU authorities seriously believe people will say "Oh, Goody!" for the opportunity to buy a Media Player-free version of Windows?
The same people who like to claim that Microsoft somehow forces people to use Media Player would no doubt be the first to crow about how Windows is so crappy it doesn't even have an application for playing music and video, if that had been the case.
"Kevin Daly @ Sep 17th 2007 6:23PM
The reason people don't use Real's products is that they're crap, and nests of spyware and nagware to boot."
That is SO TRUE! Tons of websites demand that I download it to watch their content but I simply refuse to download it because it is a whole can of worms to install it and it tries repeatedly to take over control of my media. I don't like it in the first place, it's a crappy player.
can you buy/load OS X without Itunes? Seems odd to me that microsoft can't have WMP in their software - Either way, WMP is still a great player. Probably good news for Apple Itunes, however.