EU Think Tank Urges Full Windows Unbundling 712
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."
Re:The way to solve it... (Score:3, Informative)
Wine is already completely legal.
Wine is a re-implementation of the Win32 API, and is VERY carefully reviewed to ensure it doesn't infringe on copyright. That's one of the reasons why it's such a difficult task.
A problem with reverse engineering Win32 is the lack of information. Microsoft has consistently refused to provide this, and even removes older documentation, so a significant effort for Wine is in writing independent documentation of the Windows API.
A better answer would be to require all APIs to be documented and for the documentation to be freely available.
Uh, no. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Natural Monopoly (Score:1, Informative)
An example would be operating railway tracks (note: tracks, not the trains that run on them). Anybody think it would be a good idea to occupy twice as much land, dig twice as many tunnels through Manhattan and have trains departing from 2 stations to the same destinations to have competition on that market?
Another one might be local power distribution. Fancy having twice as many pylons and transformers in your backward?
It's often been used as an excuse to justify the existence of state enforced non natural monopolies (telcos come to mind).
And of course natural monopolies can become non-natural as technology evolves (telcos again).
Re:The problem with this (Score:3, Informative)
I think that anti-bundling would merely mean that the price of the operating system would have to be listed separately and that you would have to be able to buy the same computer without one. That way you can compare operating system products and make an informed decision about which OS to choose.
This is not different from how anti-bundling regulations for GSM phones and GSM subscriptions work here in Finland. Recently they allowed bundling for 3G phones but for 2G phones it is still illegal to sell a phone and a subscription as a bundle. Of course, you can buy both at the same time but the seller must list a separate price plan for them and you must have an option to pick only the phone or only the subscription. This has been a very successful strategy for boosting up competition in the area of GSM subscriptions.
There is no market for operating systems (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:The problem is this: I DONT WANT WINDOWS... (Score:5, Informative)
Not true. I did a price comparison today of Dell's German Ubuntu laptop offer and it was about 40 EUR cheaper without Windows than an equivalent Windows configuration. My brother operates an Ubuntu PC online shop [lincomp.eu], and he also sells for the same or less than Windows configurations (including a 600 page Ubuntu handbook). Note that this only sells to Germany for now, though he is looking for franchising partners in other EU countries (hence the EU domain name). I like the way he works; he only sells systems he personally would buy, and only if they work really well under Ubuntu.
It's time to stop whining; many choices are out there now. In my opinion, the focus should now be on pressuring hardware manufacturers to better support Linux, and to clearly identify hardware which works under recent Linux versions out of the box. (I've recently seen peripherals sold with penguin logos, so we're getting there.) Ubuntu itself also still has some way to go to become a true consumer product; for example, recent versions have seen regressions [intelligentdesigns.net] on things like scanner and sound support.
Another issue is the handling of proprietary software and codecs. In my view, Ubuntu should do three things:
- Bundle or make it super-easy to obtain proprietary software which many people depend on (Skype, Flash, etc.). If the makers do not give permission to do so, say so clearly to the community. For each proprietary tool you include, create an open fundraising site to build a viable open source alternative. (And yes, that includes VoIP - I still haven't found anything open source that's nearly as powerful as Skype, esp. the Windows version; the Linux one is poorly maintained.) And before you start going on about the GPL, there is no GPL issue with including proprietary software in a Linux distribution. This falls under "aggregation" in section 5.
- At the very least, try to obtain permission to include proprietary codecs like MP3 from the patent-holders. If they refuse to grant it freely, say so clearly. I've seen lots of worries that someone might get sued, or that someone might have to pay, but no clear and unambiguous distinction between "X has asked us to pay fee $Y per user for this" and "We're not including this for ideological reasons, and because we might get sued." Of course you would promote Theora, Vorbis and other free codecs in the relevant tools.
- Openly violate the DMCA until there is a high court ruling that clearly shows that making DVDs freely playable under Linux is illegal. Make this a cyberrights issue. If you don't do so, this issue will never get the visibility it needs.
Divorce dogmatic ideology from free culture pragmatism. We all know that we want a system that's as free as possible, but to get there, we'll have to deal with the reality as it is today. Having a system that is entirely and perpetually "free as in beer" is a great first step before we can have one that's entirely "free as in speech".Re:Exactly (Score:3, Informative)
Same with the bundled media player, pretty simple, played all the common formats, was extensible which is why it happily plays oggs now. And the included high performance video player had its format and example code available so you could write your own implementation with no strings attached.
Even the desktop search was just a class that could be extended.
MS adds a browser but makes it so tied in the system that it can not be replaced and invents all new kinds of HTML so pretty soon it is hard to even browse the web with any other browser. Adds a media player which by default uses codecs that are closed and hidden and pushed everywhere else so pretty soon sound files and video is unwatchable without using their media player.
Its not the bundling,its the tie in where you can't easily replace the components and every one else is bribed, threatened etc to use the proprietary formats so pretty soon it is hard to even use an alternative system.
Re:Competitive market? (Score:2, Informative)
Most geeks don't remember that the Windows key strokes are ctrl-insert, shift-insert. They just added the ctrl-c etc to cater to ex Apple customers. (good to have choices about which hand you use as well.)
Try it, these even work on Linux (at least Gnome)
Re:Waves of Mass histeria (Score:3, Informative)
Except perhaps for MS Windows. Ever tried hunting for drivers? It would definitely be a headache to install windows with a vanilla Windows installation CD... (instead of the vendor supplied recovery disks that includes all the drivers etc.)
Re:Waves of Mass histeria (Score:4, Informative)
In a recent WW2 documentary, they said that when the US fielded tanks into the war, they didn't have to specifically assign mechanics to the tank units because most of the boys were accomplished mechanics already, from tinkering around with their cars at home. Pretty much everybody did it at the time. We're a bit past that point wrt computers today (that may have been the early nineties), but not by a whole lot.
Re:What needs to be done (Score:3, Informative)
But why require a special system buried down on some special web page to not get Windows? It should be an option for all models, selected in the same dropdown where you select Vista or XP.
Courts disagree with you (Score:3, Informative)
Um, dude, you're just wrong. Microsoft has been legally found to be a monopoly, Apple has not. End of story.
Even aside from that, "monopoly" doesn't mean strictly "There is absolutely no one else in the world you can buy the product from." If they have a dominant market position, and are able to abuse that dominant market position to gain dominant positions in other markets, push other companies around, etc, that is what's illegal.
According to my non-lawyery understanding, anyway.
So no, Apple is not a monopoly, however much you might want it to be, shill.
Dan Aris
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Informative)
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.