Possible Delays for Vista in Europe 279
tttonyyy writes "After Microsoft was hit with fines for anti-competitive behaviour in 2004 and 2006, it seems that the launch of Vista may be delayed in Europe. Microsoft is blaming this delay on a lack of guidelines from the European Commission. The Commission denies causing any delay, declaring that the impetus is not on them but on Microsoft to produce a product that conforms to the EU competition rules." Further,
The New York Times reports "Delaying the introduction in Europe, [members of the European Parliament] said in a letter made public by Microsoft on Thursday, 'would put European companies at a competitive disadvantage with every other company around the world who does have access to these new technologies.'"
Circuitous logic? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice business ya got there... would be a shame if anything 'happened' to it...
Is it me, or is this just yet another example of MS abusing their monopoly? I see the logic, but can't understand the justification for this argument -- MS shouldn't have to comply with anti-monopoly regulations because any delay will hurt European businesses due to MS's monopoly?
One of many (Score:3, Insightful)
competitive disadvantage?? (Score:5, Insightful)
What Dribble. Does that mean all those companies still using Windows 2000 / NT are at a competitive disadvantage with companies who got conned into upgrading to the virtually identical Windows XP?
I fail to see what competitive advantage Vista will give businesses who upgrade to it immediatly. Maybe companies could run into problems in 5 years time when compatability issues arise, but not in the short/medium term.
Oh please (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure that there are a few businesses out there that still run Windows 2000 on their machines, and that even after Vista comes out, some companies will take several years before migrating away from XP. About the only way I could consider Microsoft's statement valid is if you consider the new technologies found in the new boxes that will be needed to run Vista, because the current hardware used might not be up to snuff.
Sounds familiar (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft really seem to be shooting themselves in the foot lately, even if this isn't their fault.
Consequently, the European Vista will be be bundled with Microsoft's new killer app, Duke Nukem Forever.
One of Microsoft's biggest problems (along with their seemingly insane devotion to their own proprietary formats and obsession with control) is something they've always done: early overhype. The same thing happened with the Windows XP. They put out so much overblown hype early on in their product announcements (making ridiculous claims like "this will be more powerful than a supercomputer" and other such bunk) that later, inevitably, when they have to pull back and announce REAL specs and features, it comes off as a disappointment.
They are nothing less than the victims of their own unrealistic promises.
-Eric
Sony for Microsoft
Vista for PS3
And so on...
Re:Circuitous logic? (Score:5, Insightful)
The argument against MSFT isn't that they have technologies others don't have.
The argument is that they purposefully swindle their customers into using software that is designed to lock them into using a sole vendor [without otherwise good justification]. That they are abusing their POSITION as a large market share holder to FURTHER their lock in.
Arguing for MSFT is akin to saying "Yes MFST, release another product that I can't use as I choose, on the platform of my choosing with the tools of my choosing. I like being forced to use your tools, through out security and inefficiency problems because choice is bad."
There are no technical reasons why [for instance] the Office file formats are not well documented in the public. The *value* of Office is the connectivity and interface of the software. Not the file format. [hint: that's a big reason why people hate OpenOffice]. Releasing the file formats means that you can use third party tools to do things to your documents that you can't with Office [like edit them in GNU/Linux].
Similarly, their stance on DX and the Win32API is not founded in a technological superiority. It's just "different."
Tom
Re:Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair is as fair does.... (Score:2, Insightful)
But I can see their point. If the EU commission can go and levy arbitrary fines if it doesn't like what Microsoft does then I can see Microsoft wanting guidance before releasing a new product. I don't think the EU Commission has treated Microsoft fairly - their dealings seem to be tinged with a bit of anti-Americanism that seems to be all the rage in Europe of late.
So I say go ahead, Microsoft, take your ball and go home (or at least don't let them play with it a little while) so that these power-tripping politicians can understand the consquences on their actions.
Re:competitive disadvantage?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Overall though, I think you are right. There is hardly going to be a tangible disadvantage by the vast majority of companies. Most probably still use Windows 2000 and Office 2000. The upgrades from MS are never 'must-have's.
More loudmout advertising from M$. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it me, or is this just yet another example of MS abusing their monopoly? I see the logic, but can't understand the justification for this argument -- MS shouldn't have to comply with anti-monopoly regulations because any delay will hurt European businesses due to MS's monopoly?
Yes, the ultimate harm of monopoly is exclusion. Competitors are not allowed to offer better goods and services and the monopolist is able to deny service to any they please.
This time, it's pure bullshit and won't work. No business that waits for Vista will be at a competitive disavantage. It's the businesses that adopt yet another secret format for communications that will have problems. It is incredible that M$ tries to spin abuse of formats into some kind of advantage. It took years for XP to gain any significant business presence and to this day, many if not most businesses use w2k. Sensible companies store their publications in PDF that can come from any source. We've all been through this song and dance before and most are sick of it. The massive inefficiency of the M$ upgrade train is the motivator for mass migration. Vista is going to flop when people see that it's only feature is buggy access to ancient non free music and movies. Superior alternatives exist and have been adopted by many, such as Lowes, IBM, Chrysler and countless small businesses and individuals. The Microsoft monopoly is cracked and will soon shatter.
Re:Circuitous logic? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just in time for SP 1 (Score:2, Insightful)
Quick...sell, sell! :-) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fair is as fair does.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. There's nothing arbitraty about a fine that can (and should) be given to any compagny that violates a specific law. Other compagnies got this fine for violating the law, Microsoft violated the same law and should therefore pay the same fine (which the law defines as a certain maximum percentage of the companies income).
There is nothing arbitrary at "violate the same law ==> pay the same fine".
disadvantage? (Score:3, Insightful)
It could also put them at a competitive advantage by using stable technologies while their foreign competitors play with new thingies.
By the time it gets introduced in Europe, the others have already found the first bugs and Microsoft may have fixed some of them.
Re:Circuitous logic? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Fair is as fair does.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Those guidelines already exist. They are the guidelines that every other manufacturer of software has to obey when they sell software in the EU. All the EU is saying is that MS aren't a special case, but must obey the rules just like everyone else.
As an aside, why do you think that the EU treated them unfairly? What in particular bother you? And as for the "anti-Americanism that seems to be all the rage", what are you talking about? All I see are the arrows and slingshots that any market leader should expect. Yes I'm european (actually I'm British but that's another story), but that comment sounds like a persecution complex.
It seems your idea of competition... (Score:4, Insightful)
if you don't start immediately, after 5 years you'd be only at 50% completed instead of 80 or 90% like your competitors?
And your point is...? I know of no busines in existence in the world today that states in its mission statement that "we shall strive to complete a softweare upgrade rollout faster than any of our competitors"--there is no point to have a goal of getting all employees upgraded to the latest OS before everyone else. Businesses strive to offer the best quality of product or service, or to be the lowest-cost supplier, or be among the best employers, or be first to market with a new invention. These goals have little to do with what OS a company runs on their computers.
I know, it certainly could put a company at a disadvantage if it was still running ancient VAX machinesand had DEC VT green-screen termials and '386 PCs running Windows 3.1 for Workgroups on people's desks. However there has to be a balance--a company that hastily rolls out a new release of software just so it can get there first is at an equal disadvantage as the company that limps alog on ancient unsupported software and hardware. In fact, upgrading too quickly can be MORE costly to a business than waiting too long. This is especially the case with closed, commercial software because of added licensing costs.
Here is what I found was the case with nearly ALL the companies who upgraded their Windows boxes to XP before SP1, or 2003 before it was ready: the licensing costs were at their highest at initial release, proper drivers were not available for all their hardware resulting in unanticipated hardware upgrade costs, they got smacked by extra vulnerabilities or bugs not present in older software, and important applications broke upon upgrade (in particular, custom applications, ERP/EAM/other enterprise apps, industrial software like HMIs PLC programming software and communications drivers and so on).
I'd have to say MS has it backwards--the EU is helping enforce responsible behavior on its industries by delaying early adoption of unproven software, so it has the ADVANTAGE over the rest of the world. The best way to upgrade is to phase in new software gradually, for example as hardware is replaced, and periodically evaluate the benefits of upgrading. Quite often, there are no compelling benefits at all until the vendor starts dropping support. For example, only within the last year has it been justifiable to upgrade Win2k machines to XP just for the sake of upgrading--reason being is that some important new software and hardware support will not be available (things like Blu-Ray and HD-DVD media, and IE7, and limited support for SQL 2005 on win2k servers). For most companies I've dealt with, XP was not at all considered until SP1 was released, and even then the upgrade strategy was to phase it in as new machines came online.
I think MS is just showing a bit of desperation in trying to get the Windows upgrade cycle back on track, as well as frustration at being reigned in by anti-trust regulations. I don't even think members of EU parliament are stupid enough to swallow such tripe.
Re:Circuitous logic? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is pure unadulteratred FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
In this day and age of the Internet ( after all, it was created by BillyG wasn't it?) they can't stop people getting their hands on it if they want it.
Personally,
I'm not going to even look at it until at least SP1 comes out and even then we may wait longer. XP + Server 2003 are doing thier jobs and frankly, we don't feel any need to spend lots of Euros at this time going over to Vista.
Finally,
I wonder what fantastic technology is in Vista that companies will be missing out on by the delay? I Imagine with all the H/W requirements, Aero won't be high on that list. DRM? Pah FUD.
The whole schebang is marketing FUD.
Ignore them.
Re:Circuitous logic? (Score:5, Insightful)
Assumption 1 (FTA/S): Having to wait for Vista will harm EU businesses. This may be true for businesses that develop for Vista, since their market will be delayed even further. This may also be true for businesses that depend on newly implemented technology to be included in Vista (like the DRM).
Assumption 2 (mine): If there were real competition to MS, EU businesses would not be dependent on Vista for new tech deployment for them to take advantage of. For example, a competitive media player could also have the requisite DRM necessary to the media companies desire for profits based on restricting media access.
Assumption 3 (the EU courts): MS has abused its monopoly status to maintain that status and to limit competition in products other than OS.
It seems clear to me is that what MS is arguing is that since they have a monopoly, hurting them hurts the consumer of their product. It's my contention (and I'm not the only one) that this is a perfect example to show that monopolies are bad -- lack of an alternative means that some businesses will lose out should there be any interruption of supply by the monopoly. There are other reasons why monopolies are bad, IMO, but MS is using a downside of monopoly existence to justify not having to comply with measures intended to prevent abuse of a monopoly.
Your explanation of how they are violating the anti-monopoly laws is useful, but has nothing at all to do with my point. Are you just hopping onto an early post since those threads get more attention (regrettably)?
Re:competitive disadvantage?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Circuitous logic? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thay knew very clearly where the line was. They were told over and opver. They thought they could ignore it, as they did in the US.
Two thoughts on this... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Delaying the introduction in Europe [...] would put European companies at a competitive disadvantage with every other company around the world who does have access to these new technologies.'"
Awww. Cry, Baby, Cryyyy! Look, whether it was justified or not, the fact remains that they did everything possible to make life difficult for MS. I know some will say that it was a slap on the wrist, others will say that what the EU commission did was unjustified. The fact remains that MS was singled out and (very) publicly sanctioned. I think this is MS's way of poking back, and reminding the EU that they aren't, in fact, required to sell their software in Europe. Maybe now the EU understands that MS can bite back, too.
Second, maybe the EU will recognize the importance of shifting away from MS software, and possibly even offer incentives of some sort. If a single foreign company can put every EU company at a competitive disadvantage, willfully or otherwise, maybe it's time to seriously re-evaluate your dependencies. Linux may be behind in some specific areas, but if the EU were to fund serious development to bring it up to speed, that gap would close in a hurry, and soon those using MS products would be the ones at a "competitive disadvantage" for every checkbox on the scorecard.
So, I repeat: Cry, Baby, Cryyyy! When you're done, get off your asses and fund development of a viable alternative. Solve your own problems, and stop your frikkin whining. It's not like you're strapped for cash on the scale of a moderate corporate IT development project.
Re:Fair is as fair does.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Portability (Score:2, Insightful)
Windows Forms are just at hand.
Then I build programs on Linux on the other hand (or whit Dev C++) I'm missing a lot. With the exception of Eclipse (witch I admire) there are just something missing. If I'm designing a GUI in GTK Designer I can't just double click on a button and write the code for it. No. I have to first make the GUI remember all the names and make callback functions to them!
Since the release of ASP.net 2.0 I just don't see the point of PHP anymore (Ruby on rails might be an option but it is early)
In Visual Studio everything is integrated. Everywhere else the philosophy seems to be: "Keep everything separate". This might work well with the Unix Philosophy about small and reusable but for most developers it is a hell starting by looking for the right library in the current situation.
Then newcomers ask me that the PHP alternative to Visual Studio Web Express Edition is, I simply don't have an answer. That program allows me to drag and drop a login view and a GridView into a site and afterwards expect it to run on all PHP servers? (if anyone knows the answer please say so)
the people who have seen the light refers to the new programmers as just not good enough. But new programmers will most likely need to start with Visual Studio and then they first have started they just stay there