Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

+ - Google should be broken up, say European MPs

Submitted by mrspoonsi
mrspoonsi (2955715) writes "The European Parliament has voted in favour of breaking Google up, as a solution to complaints that it favours is own services in search results. Politicians have no power to enforce a break-up, but the landmark vote sends a clear message to European regulators to get tough on the net giant. US politicians and trade bodies have voiced their dismay at the vote. The ultimate decision will rest with EU competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager. She has inherited the anti-competitive case lodged by Google's rivals in 2010. Google has around 90% market share for search in Europe. The Commission has never before ordered the break-up of any company, and many believe it is unlikely to do so now. But politicians are desperate to find a solution to the long-running anti-competitive dispute with Google."

Comment: Re:what happened to obscurity (Score 1) 87

by recoiledsnake (#48275057) Attached to: Vulnerabilities Found (and Sought) In More Command-Line Tools

Most malware on Windows comes from legitimately installed programs rather than exploits. E.g. Windows RT, Windows Phone and Xbox have ~zero malware, compared to Android which has a lot of malware. It's a combination of how popular the OS is, plus if it allows non-store apps to be installed.

Comment: Re:And so therefor it follows and I quote (Score 1) 353

by recoiledsnake (#48238569) Attached to: Italian Supreme Court Bans the 'Microsoft Tax'

>The court didn't order Dell to refund how much development of Windows cost Microsoft. I don't understand how this is relevant.

The court ordered a refund of how much it costed Dell, the company which sold the PC.

It is relevant because, included in the cost of the Dell laptop is what Dell pays MS.

Included in the cost of the Macbook is how much OS X costs Apple. It certainly isn't free of cost for Apple to develop OS X. They pay for salaries, office space etc.

That cost can be calculated, and having a big accounting and operations department that track every penny, Apple already knows it internally.

Back to the hotel analogy, how does it matter to the hotel visitor whether the breakfast is made inhouse or outsourced when asking for a refund? Surely in both cases, they are included in the cost they're paying for the room and the hotel knows exactly how much the food is costing them.

What if the eggs benedict that the customers really like was made by an outsourcer and not inhouse, do they suddenly get the ability to ask for a refund?

Comment: Re:And so therefor it follows and I quote (Score 1) 353

by recoiledsnake (#48237591) Attached to: Italian Supreme Court Bans the 'Microsoft Tax'

>These aren't comparable. The OEM does not have to refund what it costs Microsoft to develop Windows. In order to approach comparability, there would have to be a market price for OS X which could be assessed.

That doesn't make much sense. I am not sure what the relevance is. Assuming Dell pays MS $30 per copy, are you implying that the judge ordered Dell to refund $99.99 to the customer who didn't want Windows? If you don't think the court did that, what is the relevance of the existence of the $99.99 copy again?

>Where can any person or organization buy an OEM (or any other) version of OS X?

If, for arguments sake, MS pulls Windows from the retail market completely and only sells to OEMs, Dell needn't refund anything anymore even if they continue to pay MS $30 per copy? Is that your argument?

If you believe the court ordered Dell to refund the $30, can't Apple calculate how much OS X development for Macbooks costs them? Are you implying it's hard to calculate so they needn't refund?

1. Hotel O hires caterers, and passes that cost on to its customers. Some of its customers object, because the food served by the caterers is not in line with either their preference or their moral convictions, and the catering was not the service they were seeking, they simply couldn't opt out. They were actually interested in a safe and comfortable place to sleep for the night near some attraction or appointment.
2. Bed & Breakfast A is a hot spot for its (few) patrons because it serves a particular dish of eggs benedict that they enjoy, and has a spectacular view.

What if some of the patrons in #2 don't like the eggs benedict or the view but just wanted a place to sleep because they think the beds(hardware) are superior? Should they be denied a refund solely because there are fewer of their kind? Your earlier argument as more like if the caterers in #1 sold the same food also in their restaurant, somehow O's customers are eligible for a refund, but A's are not.

http://www.cnet.com/news/macbo...

http://www.junauza.com/2008/04...

https://news.ycombinator.com/i...

Comment: Re:And so therefor it follows and I quote (Score 1) 353

by recoiledsnake (#48237245) Attached to: Italian Supreme Court Bans the 'Microsoft Tax'

>Of course it's not. But the price to consumers on the market is $0.

In that case, so is the price of Windows preinstalled on a Sony laptop. If you buy a $1000 laptop, you get a laptop which happens to have the OS installed.

>The former is kind of silly because you could not actually purchase the thing in question as it does not exist

So where can I buy a Windows OEM version for $30 that it costs Dell? It doesn't exist. There's a $150 but Dell didn't pay $150.

>Apple is forced to establish (or perhaps have established for it) a market price for a standalone copy of OS X with a license for non-Apple hardware (which is an unsupported platform);

Did the judge say OEM have to refund the retail market price of Windows? I don't think so. They need to refund what it costs them. Then why does Apple have to establish a market price for OS X versus what it costs them?

Anyway, the difference seems to be meaningless semantics, so I wrote up a much better analogy here:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Comment: Re:And so therefor it follows and I quote (Score 1) 353

by recoiledsnake (#48237199) Attached to: Italian Supreme Court Bans the 'Microsoft Tax'

>A Mac is closer to a PC then a car, but since most of the reason people buy Macs is they're the only legal way to run MacOS it's not exactly the same.

Most of PC buyers intend to run Windows too. Even of the 1% of people who install an alternative OS, many of them dual boot. It would be interesting to see statistics of alternative OS installs between Macs and PCs. I don't think Macs will be as low as you think since they're popular among the web developer crowd who typically deploy on Linux servers.

Comment: Re:And so therefor it follows and I quote (Score 1) 353

by recoiledsnake (#48232807) Attached to: Italian Supreme Court Bans the 'Microsoft Tax'

There are a lot of people who buy Macs because they believe it's higher quality hardware, and then replace it with Linux or Windows because they need to run some non Mac apps or it's their preferred OS. I don't see anything wrong with some of them expecting not being forced to pay for OS X and bundled software like iWork etc., especially in Italy now that it's the law.

http://www.cnet.com/news/macbo...

Always try to do things in chronological order; it's less confusing that way.

Working...