Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

EU Think Tank Urges Full Windows Unbundling

Posted by Zonk on Sun Sep 23, 2007 09:09 PM
from the fly-be-free-little-components dept.
leffeman writes "An influential Brussels think tank is urging the European Commission to ban the bundling of operating systems with desktop and laptop computers. The Globalisation Institute's submission to the Commission says that bundling 'is not in the public interest' and that the dominance of Windows has 'slowed technical improvements and prevented new alternatives entering from the marketplace.' It says the Microsoft tax is a burden on EU businesses: the price of operating systems would be lower in a competitive market. This is the first time a major free-market think tank has published in favour of taking action against Microsoft's monopoly power."

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Interesting... by NEOtaku17 (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @09:13PM
    • Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)

      Am I right?

      No, you're wrong.

      Microsoft's monopoly depends on a legally protected special privilege, which is already anti free-market. Removing the privilege would be a difficult option, so attacking one of the symptoms (bundling is also a consequence of monopoly, not just a cause) is being recommended instead.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @09:32PM
    • Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by alshithead (981606) on Sunday September 23, @09:41PM (#20724031)
      Respectfully, I don't think this is their argument is towards or against free market. It appears to me that it's more oriented towards reducing MS domination without looking at the alternatives realistically. My brand new Ubuntu install (yes, I'm very happy now) was not without a few hiccups that required experience well beyond the average user's ability and/or patience. My intermediate Xenix exposure from almost 20 years ago and overall IT experience were the only things that got me up and running on a laptop with built-in wireless without having to seek assistance. My mom just bought a new Mac last week and I've already had multiple calls for help because most of her prior experience has been MS centric. I am all for the world moving towards MS alternatives but the fact of the matter is that most folks use MS and know it exclusively. It's not about free market as much as trying to reduce the stranglehold that MS possesses due to its already ubiquitous use.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by markdavis (642305) on Sunday September 23, @09:47PM (#20724071)
      If anything, government is what makes a monopoly like Microsoft possible.

      Aside from that, in all modern "free markets", abuse of monopolistic power (as MS has done countless times) is *illegal* and subject to regulation. Or do you think it would be OK if you had to pay $2,000 a month to the monopoly power company for a 1,500ft^2 home?

      Monopolies are bad for business, bad for innovation, bad for consumers. Some are unavoidable... but if you can stop a monopoly from ruining consumer choice simply by stating it isn't allowed to "bundle" under other products, then why the hell not?

      What would you think if just about every retail TV sold had a Kodak DVD player bundled with it? What if you didn't WANT a Kodak DVD player? What if you wanted a blueray player, or a different brand, or already owned a DVD player and didn't want to pay for one yet again? What if you found out the only way you could avoid that bundle was to buy a few obscure TV models, on-line, but they cost almost the same anyway, since they are obscure? This is the type of market abuse that MS has enjoyed for waaaay too long.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Funny)

        by iminplaya (723125) on Sunday September 23, @10:01PM (#20724175)
        (Last Journal: Friday November 09, @01:36AM)
        Monopolies are bad for business, bad for innovation, bad for consumers.

        Well, they're good for somebody. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many of them.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Interesting... by slughead (Score:3) Sunday September 23, @10:26PM
        • Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by markdavis (642305) on Sunday September 23, @10:43PM (#20724481)

          If it took 1-2 hours to plug in and configure a DVD player, and the TV couldn't work without one, I'd expect the TV to be bundled with one.
          Um, let's see. Pop in a live CD or plug in a live USB key and the computer is instantly usable. So "install time" is not necessarily a great example. A car has to run on gas, but that doesn't mean that almost every car should come with a forced purchase (bundle) of 1,500 gallons of Amaco gas (perhaps because they are the most popular).

          Is it unreasonable for a computer to be bundled with an OS?
          Not necessarily. For example, I would accept if MS-Windows were preloaded but not usable until the consumer purchased a separate license for it, at a separate, visible, line-item cost, even if purchased at the same time.

          Windows is, by far, the most popular OS out there, it should come with that.

          That is a bit sweeping. And that is what helped make MS-Windows the most used (not most "popular") OS out there.
          [ Parent ]
        • Re:Interesting... by grumbel (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @10:55PM
        • Unbundling would make prices reasonable by Johku (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @10:55PM
        • Re:Interesting... by mjbkinx (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @11:04PM
        • "(a) Enter Windows license key", "(b) Format disk" by Joce640k (Score:2) Monday September 24, @12:43AM
        • Re:Interesting... by howlingmadhowie (Score:2) Monday September 24, @02:12AM
        • Re:Interesting... by Haiyadragon (Score:1) Monday September 24, @05:19AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Interesting... by catbutt (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @09:52PM
    • Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ceoyoyo (59147) on Sunday September 23, @09:58PM (#20724151)
      A market dominated by a single entity, whether it's the government or a corporation, is not a free market.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Interesting... by ZorroXXX (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @11:02PM
    • Re:Interesting...but... by Whiteox (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @11:41PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Brian Gordon (987471) on Sunday September 23, @09:29PM (#20723933)
      No, you can have a monopoly unless the government interferes. How would you say microsoft assists microsoft? .. other than buying their products I guess
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Omnifarious (11933) * on Sunday September 23, @10:23PM (#20724353)
        (http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 02, @12:21PM)

        They assist primarily with copyright law, but also with trademark law and trade secret law. They also assist with the laws that define corporations and give them rights as if they were people. There is a whole host of ways in which government assists just about any corporation. IMHO, a corporation can not be thought of separate from the government and laws that allow it to exist as a legal entity.

        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Interesting... by thealsir (Score:3) Sunday September 23, @11:30PM
          • Re:Interesting... by Omnifarious (Score:2) Monday September 24, @12:33AM
            • Re:Interesting... by thealsir (Score:2) Monday September 24, @12:36AM
              • Re:Interesting... by Omnifarious (Score:2) Monday September 24, @01:40AM
              • Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)

                by pipatron (966506) <pipatron@gmail.com> on Monday September 24, @03:53AM (#20726123)
                (http://www.vhemt.org/)

                Yes. Let me quote Wikipedia, the always 100% correct and unbiased online encyclopedia:

                A government is a body that has the power to make and the authority to enforce rules and laws within a civil, corporate, religious, academic, or other organization or group.

                One could argue that someone with a nucular device is a body that is in power to enforce rules and laws within any group of people sufficiently close. This is what the government is, and has always been. Difference is that now we often chose the guy with the nuke, or at least are lead to believe to have a choice... :)

                [ Parent ]
              • Re:Interesting... by voice_of_all_reason (Score:2) Monday September 24, @09:49AM
            • Re:Interesting... by drsmithy (Score:2) Monday September 24, @12:59AM
          • Re:Interesting... by bytesex (Score:2) Monday September 24, @05:41AM
          • Re:Interesting... by lupis42 (Score:1) Monday September 24, @09:46AM
        • Re:Interesting... by FST777 (Score:2) Monday September 24, @05:30AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Interesting... by Elektroschock (Score:2) Monday September 24, @11:21AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Interesting... by Belacgod (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @09:32PM
      • Re:Interesting... by QuietObserver (Score:2) Monday September 24, @12:21AM
        • Re:Interesting... by slugstone (Score:2) Monday September 24, @02:13AM
        • Re:Interesting... by linuxci (Score:2) Monday September 24, @02:19AM
        • Re:Interesting... by init100 (Score:3) Monday September 24, @02:46AM
        • Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Khazunga (176423) on Monday September 24, @04:45AM (#20726335)
          (http://www.sergiocarvalho.com/)

          Individualized power, which is more feasible than you might realize...
          Hmm. How do you answer these concerns:
          1. No hydroelectric power. Large hydroelectric plants are not anywhere close to large consumers, and are too large for any individual consumer, making them unfeasible.
          2. No nuclear plants. Ditto.
          3. Much lower efficiency termic power. Coal/fuel plants improve in efficiency when very large scale. A large fuel plant gets about 50% efficiency, due to heat recovery methods. Individual generators -- the portable kind -- are closer to 10% efficiency.
          4. No load balancing for wind power. Wind power, while efficient, requires load balancing in the grid, like dams pumping water upstream, in order to cope with the fluctuations of power production vs consumption.
          5. No load balancing for solar power. Ditto.
          Maybe individual power is really even less feasible than you might realize.
          [ Parent ]
      • Re:Interesting... by zotz (Score:2) Monday September 24, @07:55AM
    • Re:Interesting... by FooAtWFU (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @09:33PM
    • Re:Interesting... by dal20402 (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @10:57PM
    • Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Informative)

      by revscat (35618) on Monday September 24, @11:34AM (#20730415)
      (Last Journal: Friday May 21 2004, @12:42PM)

      Actually that's not quite correct. You can't have a monopoly without government assistance, so any market in which a monopoly exists is not a truly free one.

      Fucking libertarians.

      Tell you what you need to do: go to Somalia. Now, set up competition in the gun running business. Or drug running. Or hell, making eye openers for the Wal Mart crowd Let's see how long you last.

      Oh but WAIT, I can hear you so valiantly protest, the warlords are a DE FACTO government, thus my original point stands! Taxation is theft, just like those guys! Taaa-daa!

      And that IS the reason you are wrong, but you're too much of a fucking evangelical nutbag to see it: social organisms -- of which an ECONOMY is one -- cannot successfully exist without governments, and the best governments are democratically controlled. Where there is a power vacuum warlords will rise to fill it. The pseudo-anarchy advocated by libertarians is not successful. Never has been, unless you want to go back to the neolithic period for examples.

      Fuck I hate libertarians. I also hate the free market, mainly because I'm so sick and goddamn tired about hearing how perfect and holy it is, when it's nothing more than an ethereal Platonic ideal that a bunch of zealots hold up as their own personal Jesus.

      [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Waves of Mass histeria (Score:5, Funny)

    by phantomcircuit (938963) on Sunday September 23, @09:14PM (#20723821)
    (http://covertinferno.org/)
    I can see it now... waves of people returning their "broken" computers....
    • Re:Waves of Mass histeria (Score:4, Insightful)

      by thatskinnyguy (1129515) on Sunday September 23, @09:26PM (#20723911)
      You know, I don't find this post funny as much as I find it insightful. If I had a nickel for every time someone called me about something "catastrophically wrong" with their computer and it turned-out to be something as dumb as an icon missing or something wasn't installed at all, I would have enough nickels to buy slashdot!

      My $0.02 on unbundling Windows is that it would be a bad thing for the reasons the parent specified. The thing about Windows is: it just freakin' works for the non-technically-inclined. Take this bundling away from them and POOF! They're lost.
      [ Parent ]
    • This is TERRIBLE! Stop the socialist commies! by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @09:27PM
    • Re:Waves of Mass histeria (Score:5, Insightful)

      I can see it now... waves of people returning their "broken" computers....

      But why?

      Have a look at this laptop from a second-tier computer builder's website [pioneercomputers.com.au]. Scroll about a third of the way down the page to the "Operating Systems" checkbox. Note that you can choose between None, Ubuntu, XP, and a collection of Vista versions.

      Imagine a future version of the same field, but with "MacOS XVIII", "Plan 10" "FreeBeOS", "ReactOS Hurd", "AmigaOS Phoenix", etc, etc in the list. Real choice, in other words.

      Now imagine a world where you could click any one of those OS choices and be confident your data would be usable, that you could connect to any network you needed to, that your investment in software would be portable. A world where you could choose your OS based on price, performance and personal taste, not on format lockin and obfuscated communication protocols.

      That's the world Microsoft is fighting against.

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Waves of Mass histeria (Score:4, Insightful)

        by LynnwoodRooster (966895) on Sunday September 23, @09:59PM (#20724163)
        (Last Journal: Wednesday August 29, @03:43PM)
        Now imagine a world where you could click any one of those OS choices and be confident your data would be usable, that you could connect to any network you needed to, that your investment in software would be portable. A world where you could choose your OS based on price, performance and personal taste, not on format lockin and obfuscated communication protocols.

        Great, when you can find me that version of Alibre 3D design software that runs on Windows, Mac, and Ubuntu, let me know... Heck, when you find a common version of a spreadsheet program that runs on those three platforms let me know! I know this is /. and hating MS is de rigeur, but in some cases having a monopoly platform is what enabled the explosion in IT and the penetration of computers into the corporate and home worlds. I remember the way things were back in the late 70s and early 80s. I remember headaches trying to get a Wang document to translate to an Osborne CP/M system. Having a common platform, and for some applications a completely common interface, is really a good thing. Think cars, road dimensions, and gas nozzle sizes. Standardizing is the important thing here - your car can pretty much drive on any road, and stop at any gas station because of these standards. If you want to do the BEST thing for the consumer world, don't push to add lots more choices to the OS platform; that's going to end up with the BlueRay/HD-DVD issue where J6P doesn't know what to buy, so chooses not to participate. Push to get a stable, common API exposed on that platform - whoever supplies it - and go from there. Push to standardize the meanings of common icons - file save/open/new; copy/cut/paste; help/e-mail/launch web; and other common tasks. So that J6P can sit down in front of your application and intuitively know what to do. Otherwise you'll always end up with people sticking with what they know. Because the reality most people simply want to do the task at hand with the least amount of effort - INCLUDING effort to learn a new application interface. If they're familiar with the Excel interface, then getting them to change to something else is near-Herculean. Choice is only useful to those who understand their choices; to the rest, it's needless obfuscation, anxiety, and yet another barrier to entry.

        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by ZachPruckowski (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @10:14PM
        • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by nschubach (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @10:42PM
        • Re:Waves of Mass histeria (Score:5, Insightful)

          Standardizing is the important thing here.
          Fair enough. But if you're going to standardize, don't let the guy in charge of selling choose the standards. Would you trust Hagen-Das to set the standards for ice-cream? Would you trust the government to set the standards for government transparency? Hell, would you trust the guy in the meat shop down the street to set the standard for meat?

          Of course you wouldn't. Because it's just plain stupid. So why on god's green earth should MS be allowed to create the standard for the computing world? They shouldn't. Someone else (say, ISO, only without the bribery) should be in charge of the standards. And then let people choose on which company best delivers on those standards.

          As for you comment about too many choices, give Joe SixPack default options and recommendations. Or hell, let him go into the store and ask what he should get for his computer. If he's not smart enough to know what his computer should do, then why is he customizing a computer? That's like letting me try and customize a car. I don't know enough about it, and I will either do my research, or ask for the opinion of the salesman. The point is, Joe SixPack should be given the opportunity to pick what he wants, but also offered a default option should he not fully understand his choices. It's like default/advanced install options. The default is good for the average user. For those who know what they're doing, let them screw with the advanced options.

          But hey. That's just me and my two cents.
          [ Parent ]
        • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by jb.cancer (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @11:15PM
        • Re:Waves of Mass histeria (Score:5, Insightful)

          by w000t (1141427) on Sunday September 23, @11:30PM (#20724791)

          Great, when you can find me that version of Alibre 3D design software that runs on Windows, Mac, and Ubuntu, let me know... Heck, when you find a common version of a spreadsheet program that runs on those three platforms let me know! I know this is /. and hating MS is de rigeur, but in some cases having a monopoly platform is what enabled the explosion in IT and the penetration of computers into the corporate and home worlds. I remember the way things were back in the late 70s and early 80s. I remember headaches trying to get a Wang document to translate to an Osborne CP/M system.
          you don't need a monopoly to have interoperability, that's what open standards, documented formats and protocols are for (and those works reasonably well, they just are not used enough -specially by some players).

          Having a common platform, and for some applications a completely common interface, is really a good thing. Think cars, road dimensions, and gas nozzle sizes. Standardizing is the important thing here - your car can pretty much drive on any road, and stop at any gas station because of these standards.
          some of that would be good, but i don't see why a monopoly would help with it. or did we need to have only one company building all the cars and making all the roads to come to the current situation?

          If you want to do the BEST thing for the consumer world, don't push to add lots more choices to the OS platform; that's going to end up with the BlueRay/HD-DVD issue where J6P doesn't know what to buy, so chooses not to participate.
          that's never going to happen... J6P might be a complete ignorant when it comes to computers but, at the very least, he knows he needs one.

          Push to get a stable, common API exposed on that platform - whoever supplies it - and go from there. Push to standardize the meanings of common icons - file save/open/new; copy/cut/paste; help/e-mail/launch web; and other common tasks. So that J6P can sit down in front of your application and intuitively know what to do. Otherwise you'll always end up with people sticking with what they know. Because the reality most people simply want to do the task at hand with the least amount of effort - INCLUDING effort to learn a new application interface. If they're familiar with the Excel interface, then getting them to change to something else is near-Herculean. Choice is only useful to those who understand their choices; to the rest, it's needless obfuscation, anxiety, and yet another barrier to entry.
          standards, protocols, frameworks and common sense has already taken care of most of that, but for other things it's never going to happen, which i think it's a good thing ("let's stick with what people already know" should not become the driving force behind any standardization). in any case, a monopoly is no guarantee of what you propose (just look at what microsoft has done with the user interface in the latest office version).
          [ Parent ]
        • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by innocent_white_lamb (Score:1) Monday September 24, @12:15AM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:Waves of Mass histeria (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Dr. Donuts (232269) on Monday September 24, @01:24AM (#20725413)
          Funny, every car manufacturer I know has their own "standards". With the exception of the locations of the steering wheel, gas pedal, brake pedal, and the fact that it has four wheels, just about every other thing is different from one vehicle manufacturer to another. Yet, somehow people still manage to choose the vehicle that is best for them.

          Is driving a car intuitive? No, you must first be taught and learn how to do so. After you acquire the basic knowledge, you then have the cognitive tools to be able to adapt.

          Is that to say things have to be needlessly complex? No, but then let the *market* decide that for themselves. It's one thing to give people choice, it's totally another to *remove* choice. And that's what Microsoft has done, using any tactic possible to hinder or outright prevent any choice other than Microsoft.

          Yes, choice is only useful for those who understand. Now ask yourself the question, how useful is understanding when you have no choice?
          [ Parent ]
        • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday September 24, @01:27AM
        • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday September 24, @01:39AM
        • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by Yvanhoe (Score:2) Monday September 24, @02:12AM
        • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by l3v1 (Score:2) Monday September 24, @05:50AM
        • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by F4_W_weasel (Score:1) Monday September 24, @06:02AM
        • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by Horus1664 (Score:1) Monday September 24, @06:39AM
        • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by hany (Score:2) Monday September 24, @07:28AM
        • Selective Memory? by fuzznutz (Score:1) Monday September 24, @10:55AM
        • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by mweather (Score:1) Monday September 24, @11:16AM
        • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by CajunArson (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @10:03PM
      • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by stephanruby (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @10:43PM
      • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by arminw (Score:2) Monday September 24, @12:23AM
      • People don't want those choices... by smitth1276 (Score:2) Monday September 24, @12:52AM
      • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by drsmithy (Score:1) Monday September 24, @01:19AM
      • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by dave420 (Score:2) Monday September 24, @04:32AM
      • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by Krisbee (Score:1) Monday September 24, @07:29AM
      • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by man_of_mr_e (Score:2) Monday September 24, @12:14PM
      • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by Emetophobe (Score:2) Monday September 24, @07:03PM
      • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by pyrbrand (Score:1) Monday September 24, @08:50PM
      • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by aaron alderman (Score:1) Tuesday September 25, @03:29AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by Televiper2000 (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @10:11PM
    • Driver Disks by Howitzer86 (Score:2) Monday September 24, @03:36AM
    • Re:Waves of Mass histeria by marcello_dl (Score:3) Monday September 24, @05:19AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Bad News For Macs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23, @09:15PM (#20723827)
    Sounds like this would be more of Apple's problem if this actually went through.

    Why should Windows be the only OS singled out to be unbundled? Let's stop these double standards.
    • Exactly by dlenmn (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @09:32PM
    • Re:Bad News For Macs (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Nossie (753694) <IanHarvie AT 4Development DOT Net> on Sunday September 23, @09:51PM (#20724093)
      I don't think it would be a problem for Apple... in fact it might be the best opportunity for apple to sell OSX on beige box PCs. Contrary to popular belief, before jobs left to start up Next, he wanted to open up the OS to other vendors. It was his successors that brought the idea at Apple to fruition and nearly bankrupted the company at a time when Microsoft was bullying vendors with threats and pay offs. Having brought Apple back into the black, I cant say I blame Steve for having changed his mind since being at Next.

      Rhetorical hypothetical question... but is it sheer coincidence that both BeOS and NeXT became liabilities when they decided to target x86 architectures and unbundle their OS? OR, was this destined to happen anyway due to their own proprietary platforms and was a last gasp for air from any desperate company before sinking with their ship?

      (I'm not suggesting NeXT failed in the market place, but you have to admit I think Steve was relieved when they merged with Apple.)

      The reason apple have gotten away with it so far is that they dont bundle apps with the OS, but more apps with the hardware like dell 'bundles' AOL, Windows etc -- Apple bundles iLife and iwork trials.

      YES the new policy would mean Apple would have to think about changing strategy, but I do believe that making it illegal to bundle an OS with a computer would be one of the best things to happen in recent times for the Consumer.

      You could argue that Apple only has its name left to protect..... but if that argument is true then OSX is always associated with Apple. The reality of it is, I don't believe the majority of those valid OSX licenses own the Vista license they bootcamp from. XP yes? but you could hardly turn a corner without XP being peddled almost free of charge once.

      I do however think that the price of OSX would go up to the $180 -$200 mark because in the past the hardware and limited marketshare subsidized the price of the software. I might even consider putting it on my Linux box.... or maybe not.

      Yes,I like my Linux and my macs... I'm no apple fan boy but I despise what MS has done to the industry more than I love Steve Jobs.
      I for one, welcome our new hardware overlords without Pre-installed crap, just think! this would mean no more AOL and Norton trials :P (a plus even for windows users)

      What I've said for years is that "Software should be written for the hardware, NOT the other way around" Would we all not be happy if soft 'win' modems never existed? In the vision the EU wants.... they never would have.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Bad News For Macs by porkThreeWays (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @09:54PM
    • MS is a convicted monopolist by flyingfsck (Score:3) Sunday September 23, @09:59PM
    • Re:Bad News For Macs (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23, @10:02PM (#20724185)

      Why should Windows be the only OS singled out to be unbundled? Let's stop these double standards.

      Sigh. How many times must this be pointed out? Apple don't have a monopoly on consumer operating systems. How in hell do you think it makes sense to protect the market from monopoly abuse by placing limits on non-monopolies? There is no double-standard, there is one standard: if monopolies harm the market they have restrictions placed on them.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Bad News For Macs by ceoyoyo (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @10:03PM
    • Re:Bad News For Macs by Foofoobar (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @10:05PM
    • Uh, no. (Score:5, Informative)

      by russellh (547685) on Sunday September 23, @10:14PM (#20724275)
      (http://holt-research.com/)
      You must not have read the report. They say:

      To be clear, this paper deliberately concerns itself with the commodity computer market, where products are aimed at the mass market. We consider the Mac to be a premium, niche product, like a Bang and Olufsen television, which is difficult to justify in the business world outside of the publishing sector. We therefore do not think that the Mac, despite claims of its superiority, provides a meaningful competitive threat to Microsoft.
      Note that word "commodity", confusing geeks world wide. It means distinguished only by price.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Uh, no. by Spudds (Score:1) Monday September 24, @11:47AM
        • Re:Uh, no. by russellh (Score:2) Monday September 24, @10:25PM
      • Re:Uh, no. by ericfitz (Score:2) Monday September 24, @02:20PM
    • Re:Bad News For Macs by complete loony (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @10:49PM
    • Re:Bad News For Macs by DavidD_CA (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @10:56PM
    • Re:Bad News For Macs by aliquis (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @11:12PM
    • Re:Bad News For Macs by wagnerer (Score:1) Monday September 24, @12:46AM
    • Re:Bad News For Macs by rtb61 (Score:2) Monday September 24, @12:50AM
    • Re:Bad News For Macs by Eivind (Score:2) Monday September 24, @04:16AM
    • Re:Bad News For Macs by wmaster (Score:1) Monday September 24, @04:23AM
    • Re:Bad News For Macs by dvice_null (Score:2) Monday September 24, @04:45AM
    • Re:Bad News For Macs by MORB (Score:2) Monday September 24, @06:25AM
    • Re:Bad News For Macs by prefect42 (Score:2) Monday September 24, @06:39AM
    • Re:Bad News For Macs by boredhacker (Score:1) Monday September 24, @07:40AM
    • Re:Bad News For Macs by lysse (Score:1) Monday September 24, @08:31AM
    • Re:Bad News For Macs by tehcyder (Score:1) Monday September 24, @10:25AM
    • Re:Bad News For Macs by VGPowerlord (Score:2) Monday September 24, @01:48AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • The way to solve it... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tgatliff (311583) on Sunday September 23, @09:15PM (#20723829)
    My Little Opinion??

    To create true competition in this sector, the way to handle it is to allow their base Win32 API's to be implemented or copied... (Meaning, complete legal protection) In short, legalize Wine and similar projects... Plain and simple.. If they were to officially protect the Wine project, and similar API projects, this would allow for huge amounts of investment into this sector. Within two years nearly ever version of linux would be able to run "cleanly" virtually any Win32 application. This would also force M$ to once again compete by trying to get people to buy windows because it is better rather than because they are simply doing it..

  • The problem with this (Score:4, Interesting)

    by smegged (1067080) on Sunday September 23, @09:16PM (#20723833)
    The real issue with banning the bundling of operating systems is that it will incur extra cost and frustration for non-geeks (i.e. mums and dads everywhere) who don't know how to install an OS. Picture this: a random person decides to buy a computer and take it home. They get home, plug in and boot up. They hit a black screen with or something similar on it. They complain, try to take it back only to find out that they need to spend another $x on labour costs. The consumer is unhappy, the vendor is unhappy because they have an unhappy customer. But at least M$ gets shafted!

    Really, vendors should be forced to ask the consumer which operating system their client wants and give prices for them to their customer for every new PC sale. That would promote fair market better than "banning bundling".
    • Re:The problem with this (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sir Homer (549339) on Sunday September 23, @09:24PM (#20723889)
      Exactly. The only thing we really need is the ability to easily purchase a computer with no operating system. This doesn't need a law change either, just enforce the Microsoft EULA. If you refuse the contract (EULA) you are entitled to a refund on the software, and the fact that you have to jump through hoops and get denied repeatedly before you get a refund for Windows can be considered illegal.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:The problem with this by ezratrumpet (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @09:26PM
    • Or they could read directions/instructions by r_jensen11 (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @09:29PM
    • Re:The problem with this by sapgau (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @09:30PM
    • Re:The problem with this by durin (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @09:39PM
    • Re:The problem with this by markdavis (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @09:56PM
      • Re:The problem with this (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ciggieposeur (715798) on Monday September 24, @12:01AM (#20724967)
        Oh please. Turn on computer, it says "insert disc", you insert disc and wait a while.

        I wish the pre-installed Vista "experience" that came with my friend's new HP Pavillion laptop was that simple. Instead, it was:

        1) Boot up. Wait a LONG time to enter name. Wait a VERY LONG time to get to desktop.

        2) Immediately see "Warning! Your computer might be at risk!" popup from taskbar.

        3) Wait for flash video from HP to load long enough to close it.

        4) Select "Register Later" on a *different* HP popup form.

        5) Select "No Thanks" on Norton Internet Security 60-day trial nagware screen.

        6) Select "Get Connected to Internet" on a *third* HP popup dialog.

        7) Connect to wireless.

        8) OMG FOUR programs want to update RIGHT NOW! HP "Computer Care" something or other wants an nVidia update, Windows Update wants updates, Java wants updates, and Norton Internet Security trial version wants updates.

        9) Did I mention that this computer was running slower than a 386/16 MHz running Windows 95? Turns out defrag has been running since the first boot because it is scheduled to run every Wednesday night and it is ridiculously late getting to it.

        10) Cancel Windows updates, allow nVidia update, allow Java update, cancel Norton updates. Reboot.

        11) Uninstall Norton. This takes 20 minutes to complete with nothing else happening. Reboot.

        12) Uninstall Real player. UAC. Reboot.

        13) Uninstall Wild-something-or-other gaming package. UAC. Reboot.

        14) Begin Windows updates. UAC. UAC. UAC. Reboot. UAC. UAC. UAC. Reboot.

        15) Uninstall Office 2007 trial edition nagware. UAC. Reboot.

        16) Uninstall MS Office product agent purchase/activation thing (yes, it is left over after uninstalling MS Office). UAC. Reboot.

        17) Disable "HP Computer Care" from loading at startup. Disable UAC. Disable Windows Defender anti-virus monitoring nagware.

        From a pre-installed Vista to a "clean" desktop (which still has a bunch of crapware trial installers left over in C:\Program Files) takes about 3 hours minimum. If "mums and dads" could bypass all that with a clean installer that lets them NOT choose to install gigs of nagware they would be far better off than what they get now.
        [ Parent ]
    • Re:The problem with this by The MAZZTer (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @09:57PM
    • Re:The problem with this (Score:5, Insightful)

      by John Hasler (414242) on Sunday September 23, @10:22PM (#20724343)
      > Really, vendors should be forced to ask the consumer which operating system their client
      > wants and give prices for them to their customer for every new PC sale. That would
      > promote fair market better than "banning bundling".

      That _would_ be unbundling. Bundling is "This computer comes with Microsoft Windows factory installed. It is included in the price".
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:The problem with this by Johku (Score:3) Sunday September 23, @10:24PM
    • Re:The problem with this by kauttapiste (Score:1) Monday September 24, @03:01AM
    • Re:The problem with this by eknagy (Score:1) Monday September 24, @03:01AM
    • Re:The problem with this by MORB (Score:2) Monday September 24, @03:17AM
    • Re:The problem with this by LingNoi (Score:2) Monday September 24, @03:48AM
    • Re:The problem with this by dave420 (Score:2) Monday September 24, @04:35AM
    • Re:The problem with this by BokLM (Score:2) Monday September 24, @07:08AM
    • Re:The problem with this by kingsack (Score:1) Monday September 24, @10:19AM
    • Re:The problem with this by curlynoodle (Score:1) Monday September 24, @02:28PM
    • Re:The problem with this by Nossie (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @10:35PM
    • Re:The problem with this by init100 (Score:2) Monday September 24, @02:40PM
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • What needs to be done (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sir Homer (549339) on Sunday September 23, @09:19PM (#20723853)
    All that needs to be done is to allow any customer to refuse the bundling of Windows with a computer and be able to get a refund. It should be the purchaser's choice if he wishes to purchase Windows. I am sick of literally no OEM offering a No Operating System option, when it is so easy to purchase a company with an AMD processor or a Nvidia video card. And since the software itself is protected by an EULA which (as a contract) can be refused, this doesn't really need to be a law change. The customer should not have to jump through hoops to get a Windows refund or a no-OS option.
  • Linux Kernel Based OS over Windows OS by muindaur (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @09:20PM
  • IBM (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WindBourne (631190) on Sunday September 23, @09:23PM (#20723879)
    (Last Journal: Friday December 01 2006, @10:51AM)
    Back in the 70's, 80's when I was getting into coding (not really; hated it at that time), IBM was THE player. But they were holding back innovation. I became part of the group who was very anti-IBM and pushed both Unix and DOS (later windows). It was then that innovation really came about. MS is in the same boat now. They kill as much innovation as is needed to remain dominant. The best thing that can happen is for Windows to lose their dominance or at the very least, not be able to dictate to the market what will happen.
  • WinTax and the MS Monopoly by sapgau (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @09:24PM
  • It wouldnt really effect that much by voss (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @09:25PM
  • Apple by Belacgod (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @09:29PM
    • Re:Apple by jamesh (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @09:34PM
      • Re:Apple by Belacgod (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @09:38PM
      • Re:Apple by poopdeville (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @10:20PM
    • Re:Apple by flyingfsck (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @10:04PM
      • Re:Apple by Belacgod (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @10:08PM
    • Re:Apple by butlerdi (Score:3) Sunday September 23, @10:17PM
      • Re:Apple by tehcyder (Score:1) Monday September 24, @11:01AM
        • Re:Apple by butlerdi (Score:2) Monday September 24, @11:13AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Victory for FOSS by 777a (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @09:31PM
  • Why not just stop all bundling? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mh1997 (1065630) on Sunday September 23, @09:32PM (#20723949)
    Why stop with the OS, why not outlaw bundling of the computer components? Force everyone to install all components-motherboard, HD, video card, etc. Don't allow a case to be sold with a pre-installed power supply. Think how that will open the market.

    Why stop with a computer. When you buy a car, why allow tires, lights, sound system, seats, brakes, and the stearing wheel to be bundled with the car? Belts must be sold without belt buckles, shoes without shoe laces or velcro straps, lawnmowers without engines, .

    The list is endless in the way we are inconvenienced by having to buy a product that works(ish) right out of the box.

  • Bingo (Score:4, Insightful)

    by markdavis (642305) on Sunday September 23, @09:33PM (#20723971)
    Bingo! This is what I have been saying for many years. Consumers should have the choice to buy ANY computer with their choice of OS or none at all. And if they choose to buy MS-Windows, they will see the price associated with it, not hidden away and pretend it is "free".

    For those who want MS-Windows and want a customized install, OEM's can create appropriate "kickstart" CD's to wrap the loading of MS-Windows with all the appropriate drivers and addons. Pop in disk and wait. Plus, no more missing "recovery" discs.
  • That alone should remove their monopoly.
  • They also need to look the forced driver singing.. by Joe The Dragon (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @09:49PM
  • "Broken" Computers by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @09:49PM
  • IBM - deja vu all over again (Score:4, Insightful)

    by neongenesis (549334) on Sunday September 23, @09:49PM (#20724083)
    I was going to post this as a followup to the earlier IBM thread, but this really needs an expansion.

    Yes, IBM was the big bad monoply way back when. But we need to remember that the BIG anti trust finding with IBM that relates to the OS wars of today is that it was found to be illegal for IBM to bundle OS-360 with its IBM-360 hardware. The release of the OS from the 360's hardware was what allowed Gene Amdahl and others to split off and form IBM-360-clone companys. It was an anti-trust decision that required the unbundling of the OS.

    The big difference here is that rather than one company (Microsoft) bundling its OS with its own hardware, Microsoft has contracts with all the PC vendors that require them to bundle. So it is one step removed from the IBM situation.

    The question (that has been asked before by the likes of Judge Jackson) is: what can be done about these very private contracts?

  • Finally (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HermMunster (972336) on Sunday September 23, @10:06PM (#20724227)
    Finally some intelligent opinions in favor of the obvious. The key is that we have stifled innovation due to no competition. Force the unbundling and we'll all have a choice because we can show that other OSes are there and capable of doing what 90% of the people want. With bundling we don't have that at all as most that get a computer with a bundled OS have no idea that they have a choice. This is a FACT, and you can't deny it.
    • Re:Finally by bendodge (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @11:45PM
      • Re:Finally by Eivind Eklund (Score:2) Monday September 24, @05:29AM
      • Re:Finally by init100 (Score:2) Monday September 24, @05:54AM
    • Re:Finally by dave420 (Score:2) Monday September 24, @04:49AM
      • Re:Finally by init100 (Score:2) Monday September 24, @05:57AM
        • Re:Finally by dave420 (Score:2) Monday September 24, @06:41AM
      • Re:Finally by jeevesbond (Score:2) Monday September 24, @12:15PM
  • Bundling by maz2331 (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @10:10PM
  • So what are they suggesting? by Jartan (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @10:18PM
  • You're not understanding the issues by revengebomber (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @10:25PM
  • dvd player by simontek2 (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @10:32PM
  • Think about this.. by d_jedi (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @10:33PM
  • by gig (78408) on Sunday September 23, @10:42PM (#20724473)
    The idea that there is a market for operating systems is a complete myth. It supports the myth that consumers choose Windows. They do not. There is a market for computing systems only, balls to browser.

    The $299 iPod touch music player has a better Web browser than a $1299 Windows Vista PC. If there were a market for PC operating systems somebody would have eaten Microsoft's lunch before that could happen. The iPod touch is also more reliable than a Windows Vista PC.

    The market is for applications, ways to customize the basic computer. For a Windows PC that means office tools. For an iPod touch it is music, movies, Web sites, Podcasts. Much higher-level stuff than the operating system.

    If Apple published a CD with the iPod's operating system on it they would instantly have 100% of the "market" for iPod operating systems. That would just be Enron accounting, it's made-up. People aren't actually buying anything, there is no competition there, no supply and demand. The demand is for iPods. This is even more obvious now that CD/DVD/hard disk is giving way to more chips. The iPod is a chip. A CD with the iPod OS on it would soon enough be a chip. All you're doing is splitting the iPod into two non-functional halves so you can extort money out of the person who bought one half and needs the other. It's a waste of time because there is honest money to be made selling enhancements to a functioning iPod, or a functioning PC.

  • The answer for Microsoft is easy.... by Jon.Laslow (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @10:55PM
  • Bit much by renegadesx (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @10:55PM
    • Re:Bit much by BokLM (Score:2) Monday September 24, @07:28AM
  • Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Vexorian (959249) on Sunday September 23, @11:08PM (#20724637)

    Am I the only one who was clueless about what the subject of the story was when he read the title?

    Anyways, I think this is a terrible idea.

    Instead it should go like this:

    • No subsided discounts on software that is bundled in computers
    • Computer distributors forced by law to have an OS-less alternative for each model.

    But forcing them not to ever include the OS will just piss a lot of users off, even though they are lame windows users they do deserve some empathy I guess...

    Would be fun since they are not really MS-specific so if this idea gets executed it will be a no for Dell's ubuntu PCs and more enjoyable it will also screw Apple pretty badly...

    • Re:Huh? by BokLM (Score:2) Monday September 24, @07:33AM
  • They also need to look the forced driver Signing.. by Joe The Dragon (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @11:12PM
  • What's next- by suv4x4 (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @11:29PM
  • Unbundling won't make Vista better by michaelmalak (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @11:31PM
  • Simpler solution (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BlueParrot (965239) on Sunday September 23, @11:40PM (#20724843)
    Just prohibit them from charging more for the retail version than the OEM version. BAM problem solved. No more incentive for vendors to grin and bear it with the crazy per-machine deals. No more ways for Microsoft to threaten them with increased OEM prices if they sell Linux. No more pressure on consumers to buy a new motherboard just to get a new OEM license. It solves it all. Just require that Microsoft set one single price for their OS across the entire EU and prohibit them from charging as much as a Euro-cent extra for the stand-alone version. Once you stop them from playing games with the prices you have basically stripped their monopoly from half its power. The next step is to require that official institutions use open standards, and suddenly Microsoft's monopoly doesn't look half as scary any more.
  • OS X by tackledingleberry (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @11:40PM
  • Piracy will go through the roof by sufijazz (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @11:51PM
  • Warning - Astroturfers FUD'ing here (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bit01 (644603) on Monday September 24, @12:01AM (#20724973)

    Many of the comments on this story have been written by lying astroturfers. Lots of misdirection, irrelevant issues and noise to drown out substantial argument; deliberately confusing standards with monopolies, pretending installation time has something to do with it and many other deceptive arguments.

    Fact is, If the free market was operating correctly then forcing M$ to unbundle wouldn't affect anything; pricing and consumer choices would already be optimal and no harm would be done.

    However, M$ fights unbundling tooth and nail (just look at the astroturfers here!) because the know damn well they have an unfair advantage because of it and they want to maintain their advantage and monopoly.

    One of the prerequisites of a functioning free market is informed consumer choices. In part that requires price visibility plus the technical knowledge and ability to choose. M$ wants none of that.

    ---

    I love the free market zealots who think monopoly is a good thing.

  • Retail by obeythefist (Score:2) Monday September 24, @12:07AM
  • Problems solve themselves by Maxo-Texas (Score:2) Monday September 24, @12:40AM
  • I can see it now, Mr. Ballmer is ... by chris_sawtell (Score:2) Monday September 24, @12:58AM
  • Next: We ban "bundling" engines with cars by DavidinAla (Score:2) Monday September 24, @12:58AM
  • Globalisation Institute by Per Abrahamsen (Score:2) Monday September 24, @01:29AM
  • Mandatory certification for two OSes by Sivaraj (Score:1) Monday September 24, @01:38AM
  • Why the drama? by Bert the Turtle (Score:1) Monday September 24, @02:28AM
  • torn.. hate MS, and EU.. by Intangion (Score:1) Monday September 24, @02:46AM
  • It's about time by noddyxoi (Score:1) Monday September 24, @02:59AM
  • Shipping a system without an OS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by goldcd (587052) on Monday September 24, @03:02AM (#20725879)
    (http://www.bobpitch.com/)
    is not shipping a system. Whole point is I can point my mum to something on the Dell (or Apple) website, tell her to order that and know she'll be able to browse the net within half an hour of the tap at the door.
    I usually build my own, but there's something to be said for knowing that the OS is installed and has configured drivers for all the chips in the box.
    The answer, which is surely what MS is tryng to move the market to anyway, is to include a 'trial' version of windows. It arrives free on the Dell box with say a $30 trial and if you like it you have the option of paying say $50 outright or $5 a month to activate it - oh and did we mention for a mere $5 a month extra we'll chuck in Office? Extra $2 a virus scanner etc etc. In the same way you'll find a trial version of Norton on the machine today, you'll get a trial OS.
    To avoid people ripping Dell a new one, they just include a dual-boot to linux option.
    So - EU is happy as hardware is no longer being used to bundle software.
    Dell's happy as MS is now paying them to pre-install their software on their machines.
    Linux fans are happy as more people are buying machines with Linux installed and ready to go.
    MS's happy - they've got their claws into you, your visa details on record and can upsell you anything in their product library (why settle for $20 or whatever the OEM icense nets them) Windows fans... well they're not so happy. If you wanted a Dell box with Vista on it, you're now paying more to MS and subsidizing everybody who ran Linux instead... well can't keep everybody happy all the time..
  • None of it Matters by Eskarel (Score:2) Monday September 24, @03:21AM
  • title is wrong by BBird (Score:1) Monday September 24, @03:25AM
  • Won't change a thing by Opportunist (Score:2) Monday September 24, @03:56AM
  • Heresy by (arg!)Styopa (Score:2) Monday September 24, @06:20AM
    • Re:Heresy by init100 (Score:2) Monday September 24, @03:30PM
  • US should follow by bijoo110 (Score:1) Monday September 24, @07:23AM
  • Well, by mikkelm (Score:2) Monday September 24, @07:43AM
    • Re:Well, by marcosdumay (Score:3) Monday September 24, @09:40AM
  • The EU should pay the MS tax. by bobs666 (Score:1) Monday September 24, @08:38AM
  • How will Apple handle this if it applies to all hdwe sales?

    Their intel offerings run Linux and Windows, but if they can't bundle a preinstalled copy of OSX, it will impact them somewhat.

  • by mlwmohawk (801821) on Monday September 24, @10:30AM (#20729549)
    All belief systems break down at some point, be they economic, religious, or philosophical. "Capitalism" breaks down at the edges, i.e. when you have too little capital to compete or too much capital that no one else can.

    Microsoft has reached a functional monopoly on commodity computers. This is a fact and not subject to argument at this point in time. The problem is what to do to limit it's affect on the free market?

    I was uncomfortable with the EU forcing Windows to be broken up, they is determining what MS could do internally and that seemed wrong. However, the unbundling seems like a perfect solution.

    Personally, I HATE having to buy windows or jump through hoops to get my money back, and that is the wrong the consumers need corrected.

    Just like RAM size or hard disk size or CPU, consumers need to see a line item and associated costs. This helps the OEMs because now they can focus on their business and compete on a level playing field -- not on the whim of Microsoft's vendor agreements for Windows costs.

    Any OEM daring to offer Linux or other alternative gets threatened by Microsoft's license discount process. This will take that advantage away. The OEMs won't be held hostage by Microsoft's pricing blackmail.

    Consumers' will see the real price of the bug-ridden filth that is Windows and be able to make a real choice.

    Microsoft will be able to built Windows they way the want without EU interference and will be free to compete on a level playing ground.

    The only loss is the bundled "default" windows win. Microsoft will have to, again, work to get and keep its customers.

    No one loses.
  • Why do you think this would make a difference? by cdrguru (Score:2) Monday September 24, @12:05PM
  • from the cradle... by 2fakeu (Score:1) Tuesday September 25, @02:10AM
  • Skewed opinions by BubbaJonBoy (Score:1) Tuesday September 25, @09:01AM
  • Re:I don't think I follow by techno-vampire (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @09:54PM
  • Re:Competitive market? by iminplaya (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @09:56PM
  • Re:Natural Monopoly by mce (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @09:59PM
  • Re:Natural Monopoly by Kjella (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @10:02PM
  • Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V by Morosoph (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @10:04PM
  • Re:Natural Monopoly by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @10:17PM
  • Re:No Bundled OSX by DECS (Score:2) Sunday September 23, @10:25PM
  • Re:Unbundling.. by Superpants (Score:1) Sunday September 23, @11:03PM
  • Re:Competitive market? by dryeo (Score:2) Monday September 24, @12:15AM
  • 14 replies beneath your current threshold.