E.U. Commission: More Antitrust Trouble For MS 406
Tidal Flame writes "According to Wired news, Microsoft appears to be in hot water over antitrust issues again. The European Commission says it will require Microsoft to 'share more proprietary information with its rivals' and 'uncouple' it's Media Player audiovisual software from the Windows operating system." iCoach points to this article at The Register covering the same.
Ha! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ha! (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there any 'propriety information' they've got that we want and that hasn't already been reverse engineered by someone@somewhere?
(I can't believe 'we' just slipped so easily off the tongue there - the politics of this place must be getting to me . .
reverse engineered (Score:2)
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
There are companies that prefer to buy commercially developed software with support, guarantees etc. At the moment products such as Samba do work but cannot give any guarantee since MSFT might break their reverse-engineered implementation at any time. Office-compatability is sketchy as well and you never know if any document can be opened with other software.
If a formal spec to the protocol/fileformat/API is available and it is 100% legal to implement products based on these specs, others can easier implement products that use the protocol and they can guarantee that it works.
Re:Ha! (Score:3, Insightful)
Or rather that's what they think they are buying. As opposed to paying someone to tell you to "reboot, reformat, reinstall and upgrade".
Re:Ha! (Score:2)
The deal is, for lawyers to figure out a legal description of the problem that goes beyond just saying "M$ sucks". And that legal description has to be based in laws that were written long before computers... (Well, I'm thinking of US laws, EU laws are of course newer, but you get the idea...) So the legal case probably won't ever precisely address what seem like the obvious real issues. It is kind of like getting Al Capone for tax evasion.
Re:Ha! (Score:2)
Sheesh. what's next? (Score:4, Funny)
What's next? Uncoupling the calculator? The start button? Command prompt?
Following this line of thinking ad absurdum, what exactly is Microsoft allowed to package with Windows? Sheesh!
Re:Sheesh. what's next? (Score:2)
"Windows is a Kernel. Deal with it."
Re:Sheesh. what's next? (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact I have a hard time considering an operating system that doesn't ship with a compiler.
Re:Sheesh. what's next? (Score:4, Insightful)
The tricky part is that M$ is a monopoly. With 90-95% market share in Operating Systems, bundling browser with their operating system gives them 90-95% market share in browsers. Same goes for Media Player. This is considered as an unfair advantage.
Re:Sheesh. what's next? (Score:2)
Re:Sheesh. what's next? (Score:2, Insightful)
However with Windows, I get everything except the kitchen sink (because mozilla already has that) and can't uninstall most of it. It does allow me to delete calc.exe and erase its icon, but who cares about calculators? The really important bits that rake in the $$$ are hooked and bolted onto the OS and I haven't managed to erase them without seriously destabilizing the OS. Now if I can't do that, how will Joe Sixpack do it? Of course, Joe Sixpack doesn't care.. *sighs melodramatically*
Re:Sheesh. what's next? (Score:2)
The technicalities might have become worse over the years. The last Windows I tinkered with extensively was Windows 95, where I managed to replace everything (and then though "why bother?" and switched to GNU/Linux).
Re:Sheesh. what's next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sheesh. what's next? (Score:2)
Who cares if they can't be uninstalled? It is trivial to install a preferred player or browser and make it the default. With the size of hard drives today, the 10 to 100 MB that IE and Media Player occupy is trivial as well.
Bundling (Score:2)
Re:Sheesh. what's next? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sheesh. what's next? (Score:2)
Re:Sheesh. what's next? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the stability and security of Windows could also be greatly enhanced from the ability to remove parts from windows. Sick of IE vulnerabilities, uninstall it. I use a fair amount of additional software that is installed with windows (movie maker, media player, IE, etc.), but I wouldn't object is someone else wanted to remove those components from their system.
The flip side of the coin is the handiness of having things integrated. I like having the OS be feature rich out of the box. I don't like having to download additional software to perform basic tasks. I'm sure there are better calculators out there, but the one bundled with windows is ok for what I need it to do.
Re:Sheesh. what's next? (Score:2)
How about this: your OS is an OS, not an app. Your OS is a service provider between hardware and apps. Apps do things like play media files, browse the web, etc.
There you go. Keep your OS an OS. Everything else is unneeded, undesired, and merely designed to widen monopoly to include the means of info distribution, what info is distributed, and who gets to access info.
Sorry, this isn't a place for M$ (or any company) to control.
Re:Sheesh. what's next? (Score:3, Insightful)
If MS wants to build, say a componentized HTML renderer, or media playback library (DirectShow) that any application on Windows can use what's so wrong with that? All that IE and MediaPlayer are are simple wrappers around those reusable components.
If you think about it, apart from the very i
Re:Sheesh. what's next? (Score:2)
Telling Microsoft to "share slightly more". (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Telling Microsoft to "share slightly more". (Score:2)
I'm concerned people will think that this is "enough", that people will reward Microsoft for this "sharing of secret information" that shouldn't have been secret in the first place.
People (non-geeks) might go "Oh, Microsoft released source code so they're fine now", even if Microsoft would only reveal a fragment of code or under horrible "Shared" source licenses, since that's how news media would represent it. You'd be surprised of the headlines in some EU countries these days. "Microsoft gives in and will release source!" from Dagens Industri earlier this January, when MS were in talks with a local government.
I think that's ridiculous.
Re:Insightful ? (Score:2)
If that isn't like an alarm bell to you, I don't know what I can tell you.
Microsoft is a business that, by employing a government-granted (and by force upheld) monopoly on producing copies of it's software. They're purposely decreasing the use value of it's products (the otherwise inherent copy- and modifiability of software) just to increase the market value for them. They're increasing the short term monetary value by creating artificial scarcity through abuse of copyright.
That's something that makes me want to react against it.
Thanks for the tip. Were I to start my own business it would not be "selling software" as were it physical products. If it were at all software related, it would be something like writing custom software on a case-by-case basis, or using the street performer's protocol, or writing free software as added value to a hardware product.
amazing irony-- (Score:2, Funny)
Options (Score:2, Interesting)
Bill Gates...Jedi Master (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if MS was hoping that nobody would notice they did the same thing with Media Player that they did is MSIE.
I could see a conversation between a consumer and MS now:
Consumer: "Hey! You guys are shoving Media Player down my throat."
MS: "Media player? What Media Player?"
Consumer:"Oh, come on! You didn't actually think nobody would notice did you?"
*MS waves hand in front of consumers face*
MS:"There is no Media Player."
Consumer:"There is no media player."
MS:"You don't want any plugins."
Consumer:"I don't want any plugins."
MS:"Move along."
Consumer:"Move alone. Move along."
Re:Bill Gates...Jedi Master (Score:3, Informative)
'Money and power can have a strong impact on the weak-minded.'
more amazing irony (Score:2)
While we are at it - OpenGL (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, force them to keep those patents open to the community for at least fifteen more years, or something like that.
Re:While we are at it - OpenGL (Score:3, Insightful)
Ergo, they intend to use those patents someday - and why not (from their point of view), they no longer require OpenGL to succeed in the 3D areas that interest them.
How about this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's so sad is that many other companies do this by choice or are forced by the market, but Microsoft has to be forced to do it by governments. This is sickening.
Outside of Microsoft, the computer industry has settled on things like TCP/IP, NFS, POSIX, various ANSI standards, IEEE standards, several ISO standards, etc. just so any amount of progress is possible. When there is real competition, sometimes competitors really do what they don't like: working together for their common benefit. This is a good thing. But Microsoft is like the toddler who hasn't learned to share: mine, mine, mine! This is bad for anyone who does business with MS.
God dammit. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is how it works:
Media Player and IE are both FULLY REUSABLE ActiveX components that come with windows. Any windows developer can 100% rely on the fact that they will be installed on a windows machine (Well, not 100% with media player, but with IE, 100%). This means you can add simple media playback and web functionality to a program without having to purchase external tools or spend hours integrating some external solution!
I don't WANT components I rely on to be uninstalled. All Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer really ARE is glorified activex component hosts. The real work is done by DirectShow and the Microsoft HTML library.
I can see how this is bad for competition, but we're going after the wrong target here - IE and Media Player aren't the problem; the way they're being used is.
Re:God dammit. (Score:2, Troll)
I cant. Make linux/BSD/OS2/BeOS/WhateverOS competitive, use the same techniques.
Lets see some real binary code reuse in linux, and not this crap where App A needs libfoo1.1.so and App B needs libfoo3.4.so. If I need two different versions of the library for two different apps, guess what, that ain't code reuse.
I mean sue Microsoft when they break laws. Having a better product isn't anti-competitive. It is competitive, it's just that noone else is competing.
Linux (for example) will neither gain mind nor market share in the courtroom. You cant mandate 'make your product shitty so the alternatives dont look so bad'.
Re:God dammit. (Score:2, Funny)
C:\Windows\system32
mfc40.dll
mfc40u.dll
mfc42.dll
mfc42enu.dll
msvbvm50.dll
msvbvm60.dll
msvcp50.d
msvcp60.dll
msvcrt20.dll
msvcrt40.dll
msvcr
Re:God dammit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you rather App A symply not work because App B's required libfoo3.4.so isn't backwardly compatible? Or would you rather have everything staticly linked?
Heck, half the time, libfoo1.1.so is a symlink to 3.4. I don't understand what your problem is.
I mean sue Microsoft when they break laws. Having a better product isn't anti-competitive. It is competitive, it's just that noone else is competing.
While in principle I agree with you (people should focus energies on outclassing MicroSoft), the reality is very different. The issue that has to be addressed is the barrier to entry.
1'st tier: Make an audio platform that can be used by 3'rd parties.
This would require that each apps that wants to use widget-class-X needs to be able to go fetch / download and install it without bothering the user. Any complications in this process are such that app developers won't want to be bothered or liable for the associated tech support. Thus, if there is a "standard" garunteed installation of widget-class-X, then any sane developer would use the default. Since MS ships many and eventually all widget-classes, the defaults are usually/always MicroSoft apps.
BUT, any such app is really just part of a widget-class. Thus any non MicroSoft producer is likely to not be purchased if there is already a bundled default.
The cycle repeats itself as MS includes more and more default widgets.. Now you may think this trivial for something like media.. Maybe you even think it's trivial for a web browser... How about a web server? How about a file-system diagnostics? So on and so forth.
Now you could argue that these attributes are part of the Operating Environment (OS is a tainted word). This is merely the platform for the "real" user applications. Like video games, office products, money/resource managers, etc.
But the next issue is application interaction. Media is regularly communicated between different PC's.. Via email/sneaker-net/etc. The format of that media MUST be compatible.. Thus either you need an application that can render the media or you need to own the same software-vendor's media-package.
By media, I'm actually speaking of word-processing, spread-sheets, presentors more than jpg,
The reason MS is the champion of office apps is because they killed off their competition, and they've managed to get people to regularly upgrade to the latest version.
They way they do this is through lack of backward compatibility... If userX upgrades office; they'll generate documents that are not renderable by other peer users. Thus what often happens is that other users are greatly encouraged to upgrade as well.
Likewise, competing WordPerfect or what-have-you is generally incompatible and thus TCO is reduced if only a single vendor is consolidated to..
Thus their monopoly developed out of a cripling of one of the points of an application; interfacability (being interfacing with the user or other apps).
To be fair, it is unlikely that they went too far out of their way to hold a proprietary format.. It is more the fact that they didn't abstract the document format from the rendering process. (Embedded links to applications). I'm sure they made a contious design decision to lock customers in, however.
The problem is that once a person is has something that is adaquate, they will be unwilling to replace it was something completely new.
The end result then becomes an unregulatable monopoly. This monopoly allows them to basically tax every computer-bering man-woman-and-company on the face of the planet.. That in turn gives them enough resources to hire large numbers of "talented" people. Which in turn allows them to more quickly write widget-classes to encroach into ever newer markets, persisting the cycle.
The problems for the end user are that we're basically semi-willing citizens of an software dictator.. If they charge more money, we're forced to pay (their military is the BSA). If they break compatibility and successfully promote a version upgrade in one segment of the world, eventually everybody must upgrade to follow sute; and thereby pay their MS-tax. If they want to police you (as in 1984) then they are fully capable: (media player CD-title taddle-taleing, Win-Update installed-software taddle-taleing, and lord knows what-else).
Our lives within the computer are litterly based on the whims of MS. The only thing that prevents them for doing more to subvert us and charge more from us are practicality measures.. Suppy and demand limits their fees (but they grow as much as as fast as they can), policy viability (Their hailstorm failed in it's first attempt).
MS MUST be checked somehow, and it is unlikely to be viable through competition. Even if we wanted to, we could not all migrate to Mac's (the next most practical alternative). The application base just isn't there.
Re:God dammit. (Score:3, Insightful)
In the end money is the prime motivator for Microsoft and hitting them in the pocketbooks is the only way to make sure they _listen_. With everything else MS will just wiggle around and delay until the 'remedy' is void of any real teeth.
Re:God dammit. (Score:2, Insightful)
IE has become a de facto standard for how your HTML should render. The W3C should be the authoritative source, not just MS. Similarly, industry consortium should decide on A/V delivery standards. Microsoft should not be allowed to use their OS monopoly to unfairly affect this decision to their exclusive benefit, but clearly they have been doing so - see the Windows Media sticker on your new DVD player.
It's not all MS' fault. Morons everywhere confuse the terms "protocol" and "product" and let MS walk all over the rest of us.
Bottom line - evangelize and trust bust until they stop it. Maybe people are sick of hearing about it. Sorry, we need to keep whining until they are stopped... or until all means have been clearly exhausted.
Re:God dammit. (Score:2)
Re:God dammit. (Score:2)
There are two reasons I can think of to go with Microsoft's components:
Not reading, are we? (Score:2)
Re:Trolling are we? (Score:2)
EU (Score:4, Informative)
Playing to the commission and its composition authority will be orders of magnitude more difficult than doing it in the US, especially the French and Germans.
Not to say its not possible, just a lot more difficult.
Re:EU (Score:2)
Most obnoxious media player ever... (Score:4, Funny)
'uncoupling' (Score:2)
I wonder if some of the new 'proprietary information' will include some of the WMP technology so that Winamp [winamp.com] et. all can play the files properly. At the moment nullsoft is required to not do anything to WMP files but play them - no visualisation etc.
Inconvient now, but maybe good in the long run. (Score:5, Informative)
Hey Microsoft! (Score:5, Funny)
Bundling... (Score:3, Troll)
So, why is it wrong for MS... but alright for Red Hat, Mandrake, etc?
Re:Bundling... (Score:5, Insightful)
However M$ has used its market & political clout to ensure that their software cannot be uninstalled. "Why?" you ask. The answer is obvious, to kill the competition. They produce a product that most end users will accept blindly and force distributers to use that product and not others. If it could be uninstalled, some companies might accually install another browser in its place.
Look at the transcripts from the Anti-trust suit over IE. Many major distributers (Compaq, Dell, etc.) were forced to remove Netscape as an installation option, or face the revocation of their license to install Windows on their systems. Micro$oft wouldn't do this if kind of marketing on a whim, and I don't think that they are doing it for tech support reasons.
Microsoft has a knowledgable grasp of consumer markets. The economy is driven by laziness. The key to dominance its to produce something difficult to remove and make it difficult to obtain alternatives.
Re:Bundling... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Linux distributions, for example, bundle to increase user choice. Microsoft bundles applications to decrease user choice.
Why is this do difficult for many people to understand?
Re:Bundling... (Score:2)
How can the same action result in two opposite outcomes?
Because what actually reduced user choice in Microsoft's case is not bundling (which in fact increases choice), but its other actions, such as preventing OEMs from also bundling Netscape.
In fact, if Microsoft had allowed Netscape to ship with OEM PCs, provided a start-up option to choose Netscape or IE as the default browser, and actually respected that setting even in its own software (when launching a HTTP link from email, for example), then I don't think many people will disagree that it'd be a rather fair fight. A monopoly is required to bend over backwards like that for a competitor.
It's not the "bundling" at all, and I'm only explaining all this because you were wondering:
Why is this do difficult for many people to understand?
Re:Bundling... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fact: some flavor of Windows is installed on greater than 90% of home and business desktops.
Fact 2: A new market emerges, where multiple companies are producing multimedia players which can stream music and video over the internet to Windows-based desktops. These players become popular, even though users have to install them as third-party software. This isn't a really big deal to them, however.
Fact 3: Microsoft sees that streaming multimedia players are becoming popular and realize how easy it is to take over that market. So, they create a new player program, which uses proprietary undocumented file formats and uses proprietary undocuemented API resources, and they bundle this program for free with all new releases of Windows and provide downloads for old releases of Windows.
Fact 4: Being oblivious to the proprietary nature of the new player, most of the users for those 90% of home and business desktops begin using it, because it is convenient and seems to perform better than the alternatives.
Fact 5: The market share of the original implementations plummets, their companies disappear or are left to forage as niche or boutique companies, and suddenly there is only one viable popular streaming multimedia player available!
It's that simple.
This formula works for web browsers (IE), office suites (Office, of course), graphics APIs (DirectX), operating systems (DR-DOS), and compression software (Stac), too. A similar argument can even be made concerning e-mail server software (Exchange), diagramming software (Visio), and probably lots of other things I've forgotton or have been swept under the rug by MS' PR department.
And, this whole thing depends on Microsoft maintaining a monopoly on desktop operating system software (See fact #1 above).
Re:Bundling... (Score:2)
You are incapable of changing the system (Score:4, Interesting)
We are all screwed. Your computer is not yours, it belongs to WinTel. You do not own right to listen to the music you just purchased, you just rented it. You do not have the right or the option to choose where your utilities come from (or how much you are going to pay for them), the phone and power companies have made that decision for you.
This whole idea of democracy was a crazy experiment to begin with. The new monarcy is fully in control.
Fucking give up and quit whining (I'm now off to mail my monthly Microsoft/Intel/Verizon payment).
Reminds me of a Citizen Kane quote (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No trouble for MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait until the next version of Windows comes out. That way if there is a negative decision for MS, they won't really be selling the incriminated software anymore. Instead they will be selling other software that takes advantage of their monopoly in some other, but equally devious way.
Good luck to the EU on this one though...
Re:No trouble for MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No trouble for MS (Score:2)
Re:No trouble for MS (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No trouble for MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Another important fact that is being overlooked is that although Microsoft has had antitrust troubles since 1997, they've also remained profitable every year since 1997 - very profitable. This EU thing isn't going to change that, the DOJ was the big threat and that's no longer an issue. Even if Microsoft has to provide some way to fully remove Windows Media Player and provide more information to others, it's not going to all of a sudden make them an unprofitable company.
MS will not be gone in your lifetime, no matter how much you wish it.
Re:No trouble for MS (Score:5, Funny)
Bill Gates (to lawyer fleet): Drop everything and concentrate on finding loopholes for me for the next 6 months.
Re:No trouble for MS (Score:3, Insightful)
Bill Gates (to developers): Drop everything and concentrate on security for the next 6 months.
Bill Gates (to lawyer fleet): Drop everything and concentrate on finding loopholes for me for the next 6 months.
The problem with this comparison is that the developers failed, but the lawyers won't.
What's interesting is to think about the fact that the two "directives" address different sides of the same meta-problem: Can a set of fixed rules be created that can defeat the attempts of a clever and determined adversary to exploit/violate them?
In the first case, the "rules" are software code and crackers are the adversary.
In the second case, the "rules" are laws and court orders, and Microsoft's lawyers are the adversary.
While MS has a poor track record for building secure computing systems, they've repeatedly demonstrated that they're the undisputed masters of legal hacks.
Re:No trouble for MS (Score:4, Interesting)
Unlike the Bush-defanged DOJ, the EU commission has real teeth. I suppose that if MS plays its usual games of evading things they agree to, it may be in for some of that "10% of worldwide income" treatment. That's real money, it's going to hurt.
Just like DEC isn't gone and Compaq isn't gone.
Re:No trouble for MS - not always profitable (Score:2)
A point about profitability (Score:2)
The best thing that the DoJ and EU trials can do is make more of MS's partners warry of doing business with them. Things like License 6 are already annoying businesses and BSA audits are certainly bringing it tons of good will for Linux and alternative-OS choices.
No, MS isn't going anywhere anytime soon. I just look forward to the day where Chompaq or Dell start selling non-Windows consumer PC's.
Re:No trouble for MS (Score:3, Insightful)
Even that scenario presumes that "the business model of MS, for some reasons (sic) becomes worthless," which I don't think anybody with any sense anticipates. Windows and Office generate reams of cash on a steady basis, and even if found in violation of antitrust they would just pay a fine or face some other minor financial or operational penalty - hardly a threat to their continued profitability.
Re:No trouble for MS (Score:2, Insightful)
Ummm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ummm (Score:2)
Re:Just for the record (Score:2)
How does a comic book sound?
No, I did mean the comic book guy [snpp.com]. That cave you live in, it must run really deep, huh?
Re:why? (Score:2)
i thought this was a linux website, not a 'against windows' website.
you have a user id in the 400k's. you're just now realizing this?
by the way, they have computers you can carry around now -- they don't use vacuum tubes or take up huge rooms in a basement somewhere
Re:Media Player? (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't the danger more with the proprietary windows media formats (.wm
If WMP is guaranteed to be installed by default on all Win PC's and is set as the default player for all known media file formats, doesn't this cause concern that MS can then attempt to use their monopoly position to displace other formats? Does that unfairly disadvantage competing software makers that might then be forced to license wm formats?
Again, I don't know - just asking the question.
Re:Media Player? (Score:4, Insightful)
You must be one of Microsofts favorite customer types. The one that'll happily buy the Bundle(tm), with whatever middleware and applications Microsoft decided to snuff out this time around.
Somehow I don't think you've understood any of the reason why anti-trust laws exist. If you can make sure 95%+ of your target market has it installed by default, or just make it hard to replace or make replacements unreliable and not follow standards, you will take over the market regardless of your actual product qualities. That is not fair competition, that is abuse of your monopoly. Maybe the EU courts will be less blind, deaf and dumb than the American ones.
Kjella
Re:Media Player? (Score:3, Insightful)
So from one day on an other my company has become obsolete. Everybody has windows, they all enjoy free pink fluffy thingies and I'm will be out of bussiness.
MS used their monopoly to take over the pink fluffy thingies market. This is forbidden in most civilized countries.
They use windows to promote office, I never heared of stacker again. QEMM was driven out of the market by EMM386.sys (hardly as good, but good enough) IE was improved until netscape was a footnote in history. After that there were hardly any real improvements anymore (besides those features needed for the deeper intergration into windows.. Look judge! Windows will not work without...)
Did the world become a better place? Yes and no.. John Doe gets a complete and nicely intergrated system.. but.. the with profits as high as they are the windows/office monopoly it is an overwelming proof why monopolies are bad. They higher the prices and stiffle innovation. (and no, I don't consider again an other interface and the addition of extra features which were available for free already innovation. The only innovations from MS are in the marketing department. And maybe in the financial/juridical part)
Anyhow, as far as I can see MS is becomming it's own worsed enemy and one way of the other, they will go the way of the greeks, the romans and the other "empires". Some of the good things live on, a lo of the bad things will disappear for a generation or smt. and for the rest they will become history.
Re:Media Player? (Score:2)
How do you think this might effect a content producer's choice of media format? If you were a content producer, would you have second thoughts about using a format that Microsoft could break at any future time? Is it possible that you would be inclined to chose Microsoft's preferred media formats to avoid such dificulties?
Re:Media Player? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:More to the point (Score:2, Interesting)
Diablo, Warcraft, Half-Life, and Tribes.
You DID know Vivendi was a French company, right?
Re:More to the point (Score:5, Insightful)
What the fuck did the french ever give us?
A victory in the American Revolution ?
Re:More to the point (Score:2)
And don't think for a minute that France had forgiven England for the Frenceh & Indian War (after which the French were forced to cede Canada to the British). Much to their surprise, I would imagine, they didn't get any of their territory back after the Revolutionary War.
Perhaps THAT'S why they are so bitter towards us Americans?
Re:More to the point (Score:2, Informative)
Napoleon would have eventually lost it in the eventual surrender to the british, but they did not surrender the Louisiana Purchase to America.
Re:More to the point (Score:2)
Without the French Navy disrupting British supply and ensuring ours we would have lost that war going away. The French sent the British packing at the Battle of the Virginia Capes, then blockaded Chesapeake Bay and transported American and French troops to Yorktown, forcing Cornwallis's surrender.
Re:Make Windows as crappy as linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Make Windows as crappy as linux (Score:2)
I have a store. A real "brick & mortar" store. There are plenty of things that I choose not to sell because they don't fit my business. If someone said that I *had* to sell a particular product, I'd tell them to take a flying leap.
Re:Make Windows as crappy as linux (Score:2)
B) Capitalism is determined by competition in a free-market. The desktop PC OS market is governed by a monopoly which by it's very definition means it's no longer a free-market. Look it up.
C) Did you even read my post? Did I even *mention* forcing anybody to sell anything? No. It's about forcing somebody to *not* sell something in a bundle. There are plenty of rules like this already in place, ask your local telephone company for one example.
Re:Make Windows as crappy as linux (Score:2)
It would also need something along the lines of the only discounts they can offer being volume discounts. Not exclusivity discounts.
Re:Make Windows as crappy as linux (Score:2)
In which case there would be 3 items, hardware, software and the service of installing the latter onto the former.
And if he did, he'd chose the easiest to install. This would be Windows.
Except that this isn't the case for all hardware. Especially once you move away from the home user market.
And then there is crappy competition (Score:3, Insightful)
Everytime microsoft integrates something to the os (and it is pretty decent), I don't have to cough up dough for a third-party product. I'm not going to pay $30 for quicktime pro when I get a superior media player for free.
I think open-source will provide constant, unbeatable competition to MS, and the end result won't be the downfall of MS, but a very dramatic increase in the quality of their operating system.
OS will be like a pace partner in running, they won't ever beat you, but they will make damn sure you are running hard the entire time.
Re:windows is good because there's a monopoly (Score:2)
Re:wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, its more like telling the Microsoft Motor Corporation that hey are not allowed to sell cars designed to only work with the Microsoft Oil brand gasoline when there is no reason why it shouldn't also work with the competitor's gasoline.
Re:wtf? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:wtf? (Score:2)
Re:wtf? (Score:5, Informative)
Since when? Ever since Microsoft was found to be a monopoly in a court of law, that's when.
Re:Zoran Djinjic assasinated (Score:2)
Rich
Re:Zoran Djinjic assasinated (Score:2)
Rich
Re:Not really fair... (Score:2)
If you know your own mortality, LEAVE NOW...
I said I'd only post a few times. Now look at my Comments [slashdot.org]
Re:Not really fair... (Score:3, Insightful)
You're allowed to do that, just be sure you have some valid points ready
Yes, I loathe the general instability of their products and the outrageous prices, but Microsoft is a company. A company in a capatilist system.
I believe the word you were looking for was "capitalistic" (although, that might have two L's I'm not completely sure
Why do we punish them for doing their job? People say they need to cripple a successful company in order to let lesser ones compete, but what companies are they helping?
Well, the Linux distributors certainly qualify, but think about the fact that there has not really been another commercial OS to make inroads into the desktop market.And don't quote superiority of Windows on the technical level, I might choke on my drink while laughing! I mean really, MS got where it was because, 1) a PR department from HELL, and 2) evil business practices (of which I won't detail, as this post is going to be longer than I wanted).
What OS is there that the general public [People on the AOL level of understanding] will want? I know Linux is great, but it is not something for the general public in its current flavor. Most end users won't understand what compile even means.
I couldn't tell you the last time I needed to compile something on Mandrake. And that is the distro targeted at the AOL-level users out there. I wouldn't know about Lindows, never used it, and don't plan to in the future, either. OTOH, compiling is handy if you have a piece of hardware and you need to compile a module, and that's something that shouldn't happen on an AOL user's system anyhow.(**Disclaimer: I use Mandrake on the desktop, Slackware on my server.)
My point in general, I guess, is that Microsoft does have a product for the general public, yet everyone sees having a good foothold on a market as a tyrannical thing.
Oh, they have more than a "good" foothold... And let's not spend too much time on HOW they attained it. Not to mention those same methods are still in use to maintain it.(And since they are declared a monopoly, they aren't allowed to use those methods.)
If people don't want to use Windows' Media Player, they don't have to. I use WinAmp, and it works perfectly. I don't worry one bit about WMP, I see no reason that Microsoft should be forced to rip away the Media Player for one, which would most likely lead to many more holes in the code which could cause even more errors when visiting web pages with any kind of audio or movies or even inserting a CD
True, you can use WinAMP in place of WMP. That's not completely the issue. Think about the "AOL user" as you put it earlier. If there is already an application of the sort the user needs, why are they going to bother going out to get another one. AOL users (generally) are too lazy to do that, they will just use what is available.
Well, I'm done on this post, have a good day