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."
The way to solve it... (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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".
Linux Kernel Based OS over Windows OS (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What needs to be done (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't even mind MS-Windows pre-loaded but unusuable and unlicensed without a "key" that is purchased separately (or at the same time, optionally, with a line-item charge clearly visible).
Re:Exactly (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Waves of Mass histeria (Score:5, Interesting)
But I never charge $50 for an install. I do all the drivers, the updates, give them free antivirus/adware protection, free productivity apps, etc. My cost is $85.00. I know others have higher costs and some lower. When you consider it takes at least 2 hours to just do the Microsoft updates/service packs (including the option software) -- after the OS has been installed with drivers -- before protection apps and then beautification you should be able to see why $85.00 is not out of line. It can take 4-8 hours just to complete the install with everything.
Bundling helps companies such as Dell, Sony, etc. It hurts consumer choice because they don't realize they have a choice of operating systems other than Microsoft. When people find out from me they are happy I told them and amazed they didn't know there were other choices. I've turned a lot of people onto the Macintosh and onto Linux. Almost everyone that comes into my store gets a demo of Linux with Beryl/Compiz.
Consumers need to know there's a choice!!!
Re:Waves of Mass histeria (Score:3, Interesting)
If web apps are the future of computing, I'm going to shoot myself.
Even over a fast connection, the performance is reminiscent of a P3 with 64MB RAM running Vista (if it could).
The interfaces are typically reminiscent of Windows 3.1.
If true platform independence means regressing 10-15 years in usability, I'll stick with my (non-Windows) proprietary platform.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft also gets the protection of Trademarks, including having a trademark on the term Windows in a computer related context, even though there's prior art there (prior art restricts patents, not trademarks).
At this point, Microsoft gets the protection of IP doctrine, which mean its lawyers can contend that what they really have isn't patents, trademarks, trade secrets, contracts, and copyrights, but some generic thing called IP, and that IP is some sort of nebulous thing, that has the infinite duration of an enforced trademark, but doesn't require enforcement. It has all the rights associated with copyright, but doesn't expire. It has the rights associated with traditional written contracts, but can be handled by a EULA which takes effect without a chance for the other party to read it before purchase. And, as I noted, it gives the same protection as patents when Microsoft wants it to, but doesn't require disclosure. Note that Microsoft's stock disclosure says that IP assets make up well over 1/2 of the capital assets of their corporation and this determines their stock valuation based essentially on their own claim for that IP's value. Note that this value is not subject to property taxes or short term capital gains tax, and some of it is not taxable at all, and so Microsoft's corporate taxes are proportionately lower than a more hardware oriented competitor (i.e. Apple), or a hardware oriented partner (Dell, Intel, etc.).
Simpler solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The problem with this (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Warning - Astroturfers FUD'ing here (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Interesting... (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand, our present power grid is unnecessary. Edison had two options for delivering power to the masses, centralized or individualized, and chose to support the centralized structure because he felt it would work better. In practice, however, it has been clearly shown that the power grid is more vulnerable than individualized power would ever be. With centralized power, all terrorists or any enemy has to do to cripple a society is take out the power grid, the generators, or knock out a few dams, and everything goes down. With individualized power, each person has his or her own generator, and is therefore responsible for its upkeep. Individualized power, which is more feasible than you might realize, is more secure, and allows true competition in a way centralized power can never provide.
People don't want those choices... (Score:2, Interesting)
My grandmother, on the other hand, couldn't give a rats ass about having the choice for AmigaOS Phoenix, and, in fact, it will confuse the hell out of people who have no interest or need to learn about all of those things. It's not popular to say on slashdot, or course, but, like it or not, the ubiquity of Windows is the single greatest thing that ever happened in terms of mainstreaming PCs and making them accessible to "normal" people.
This is a lot of special interests bitching and trying to get favors from their regulatory pals. It has absolutely ZERO to do with what's good for the typical customer of a PC vendor.
Re:Waves of Mass histeria (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:The way to solve it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Let the EU mandate open standards for use in their own communications (both internally and to citizens). Since no one vendor will control the standard, vendor lock-in is avoided* and freedom of choice provided.
In my opinion, that is all we should aim for. Let people be free to choose the product they want. If that is a home-built PC with a custom-built Linux installation, fine. If it is a Sun workstation that comes bundled with Solaris, fine too. Dell PC with bundled Windows? Great!
As long as we're free to choose.
Slowly, we're actually moving in this direction. Just look at the whole ODF vs. OOXML circus. Or look at
* This won't happen when standardizing on win32, because Microsoft will be the one controlling the standard, with others playing catch-up.
Incorrect-you don't understand competition law (Score:3, Interesting)
Nobody is suggesting you should not be able to buy a computer with a preinstalled OS and ready to go. The suggestion is that you should be made aware at the point of sale of how much of the purchase price is the OS, and that it should be illegal for an OS supplier to make agreements based on exclusivity. If Dell wanted to sell nothing but Vista they would be allowed to, but they would also have to sell the same computer with no OS at all, and Microsoft would be barred from any agreement which penalised them in any way at all for doing so.
There are so many posts on this thread that are simply incorrect that I suspect that MS' lobby firms are astroturfing like crazy - they've had a bad week, even that bastion of respectability Scientific American called them "Micro$oft" on their website this week, in a rather hostile article. Obviously people are starting tog et the drift at last.
As an aside, in a world of "free markets", the internal management of many company sales departments is actually profoundly anti free competition. I suspect that one reason so many North Americans (and more traditional Europeans) have difficulty with the concepts of competition law, despite its great age, is that "business as usual" is profoundly opposed to it.
Shipping a system without an OS (Score:3, Interesting)
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..
Driver Disks (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're using an obscure os though - then chances are you know what you're doing. Don't expect a Driver Disk for everything, some of you will have to go driver hunting. But also don't expect computer vendors to sit idly by either.
In conclusion, I believe this idea isn't as bad as some of you think.
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes. Let me quote Wikipedia, the always 100% correct and unbiased online encyclopedia:
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... :)
Inconvenient for Apple if this applies to all mfg (Score:3, Interesting)
Their intel offerings run Linux and Windows, but if they can't bundle a preinstalled copy of OSX, it will impact them somewhat.
Re:Inconvenient for Apple if this applies to all m (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's how it would play out..
Bob goes to best buy to buy a computer, he see's one cheap for $399, brings it home, hooks it up, turns it on, "non-system disk or disk error", he calls tech support, Tech support asks him which OS he purchased with the system, He says "What's this Oh-ess? " and ultimately gets mad at the phone lackey, who then gets his manager and Bob ultimately returns the computer to best buy. he then notices the mac, and asks does that come with an Oh-ess, why yes it does. Apple then gains a new customer because most people expect a computer to come with an OS, and now magically Apple's the only manufacturer selling computers with an OS. I could see this boosting Apple's market share over the period of a few years to a majority, and in about 5-10 years, near monopoly status. MS would be falling, but Apple would now be the new market leader.
Now unbundling all OSes will annoy customers quite a bit. I used to work tech support for a Hatable Pc manufacturer, and the majority of our customers thought that the OS that came with the computer should work right out of the box, in fact quite a few of them were upset with the inital setup of having to type their name and wait a few minutes for the final installation.
So I don't know how well forcing them to install an OS when the first bring their new computer home is going to go over.