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.'"
Possible Delays for Vista in Europe (Score:5, Funny)
competitive disadvantage (Score:5, Funny)
Re:competitive disadvantage (Score:4, Funny)
Re:competitive disadvantage (Score:5, Funny)
How the hell? (Score:4, Funny)
Emphasis? (Score:2)
Re:Emphasis? (Score:4, Informative)
[crickets chirping]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
How working on last year's Office suite can curtail Europe's productivity escapes me completely.
Re: (Score:2)
How working on an OS without advanced DRM features can curtail Europe's productivity also escapes me, and is more relevant to this article. (Well, no, its not beyond me in either case: developing apps that work on Microsoft platforms or with Microsoft Office is a big field of endeavor by itself, and delay in access to the newest production version of either would be something of competitive disadvantage for th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) write to MS about possible issues that you may need to fine them another 1/4 billion for
2) MS responds with possible fixes for the issues as asks if these address the problem
3) EU says its not thier job to say if it addresses the problem or not, but they better just release it
4) ??????
5) Profit!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Circuitous logic? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Circuitous logic? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it's in the scheduler allright. An XP machine with a gigabyte of RAM ren
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't worry; they'll release a patch in a few days.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want to do business with someone who can hit you for billion dollar fines unless the rules are absolutely crystal clear and carved in stone?
To me, as a microsoft basher, EU seemed very aggressive on this (to make a point that they were not kidding). The first fine was probably a "cost of doing business". The second set of fines was pretty harsh and got M$'s attentio
Re: (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.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That said, suppose I send you a
Suppose, MSFT stops releasing Office [for whatever reason]. What do you do then? [other than rejoice...]
Tom
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And it won't be included by default (seperate download last I heard) because Adobe threatened anti-trust action.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Um, how about doing the customers a service?
And I think you're forgetting how engrained MSFT truly is. Yeah, sure it's nice to say "just stop using it." that's something I bring up often with my fellow co-workers. Doesn't seem to change anything. Even when we sneak a OSS OS on our workstations we still have to scramble to read the latest PPT from our PHBes.
If MSFT were truly about marketting various products you'd see things like Visual Studio or Office for GNU/Linux. I m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Think about it, what would be one reason to use Windows? Is it for the multi-user server capabilities? The stable modular and portable Kernel? The portable WM? etc. People buy Windows to run the programs that should be portable anyways.
Which makes me ask a question: If Office costs $800 a seat and windows is next to free [in huge license agreements] why not just ditch Windows and sell Office/Visual Studio as your main product?
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
I am not forgetting anything, I KNOW they are engrained and I know it would be very difficult to not use their products but that is just the way it is, not everything in life can/need to be fair.
oh
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be like Shell only selling gas to Ford owners, then buying up 1000s of gas stations in key locations [e.g. where you can own the market]. Wouldn't shell make more money by selling to everyone? Except yes, in this case Office is owned by MSFT just like Windows. So that's like Ford and Shell merging and then doing the same thing.
And saying that's solely a
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, are you that deluded? First off, MS sells Office for OS X so your point is already invalid. Visual Studio is a huge application and it is no small task to port it to Linux. Of course, why should they? The vast vast vast majority of their developers run Windows because they are targeting their software at Windows.
Opening up the Office file formats wouldn't do their customers a service, it would do other businesses a service and give users more choice which would be nice but not something many companie
Re: (Score:2)
How about the opposite argument? MSFT is not forced to sell their products in the EU. The EU has placed restrictions on them, which as lawmakers they are perfectly entitled to do. If MSFT doesn't like it, there's nobody forcing them to sell their products in the EU.
MSFT however is not entitled to r
Re: (Score:2)
This whole maneuver is just an attempt by Microsoft to bully the European Commission.
Now that's what i call.. (Score:4, Funny)
EU delay on Vista (Score:3, Funny)
One of many (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The delay of Vista in Europe is a victory for free and open source software.
Assurance Program? (Score:2)
Are aware of the expensive code assurance programs M$ sold a few year back? Promissing to release all sorts of feature filled improvements in the near future since 2002, M$ suckered lots of big companies into buying software
Delay of Windows is good (Score:4, Interesting)
Portability isn't everything, but relying on a single, unreliable vendor is lunacy.
It's amazing how many IT people I've met who have "heard" or Linux. All they've ever known is Windows. Perhaps Microsoft's failures will encourage developers to investigate alternative platforms. Windows is important, and you should support that platform, but when Windows fails you, you really need to have a backup plan.
hypnotic hold (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
After so many delays... (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
If Microsoft completely locks out European companies access to Vista, the small European software developers will have a very difficult time.
Re: (Score:2)
Why, is Vista dropping support for Win32 apps? I though not.
Will European developers not have access to the
What is this "difficult time" of which you speak? Not having Mickysofts latest DRM? Ooh, I'm scared. [/sarcasm]
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, I think any businesses who upgrade to Vista immediately will likely find themselves at a disadvantage. Even if we were to assume that Vista will be a great OS and offer lots of advantages, it still remains that there is not yet much support for it, and likely won't be fo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that includes DRM right?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they can read MS fud^H^HPR statements, so at least they outsmart the amoeba when it comes to having reading skills.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you could count the number of UK citizens who know the name of their MEP on one hand. Well, ok, it's in the 100s of 1000s but still a very small percentage of the UK population.
The voter turn out is extremely low for EU elections. Generally the political parties field candidates in training - or just some muppet they can't fob off somewhere else
Re: (Score:2)
I think that if they really understood the issues in general they would not have made such a statement. Just because you're in government, doesn't necessarily mean that you're above being a corporate shill. No offense to the British, but I'm willing to bet that there are a few Ted Stevens over there as well that are just as ignorant when it comes to modern technology as he appears to be.
If they were really concerned they'd probably be trying to work
The MEPs named (Score:3, Informative)
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...
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And what exactly would those consequences be, other than MS locking itself out of a huge and growing market? Were this to happen, we'd just keep on using XP. If MS went all the way and refused to sell any copies of any of their software, there's a real chance that affected EU member states would simply (temp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
MS is still not complying with the previous judgement against them, I don't think it would be unrealistic to think that this could be continued to the point at which the court discards all MS EU copyrights and patents relating to the offending items.
Re: (Score:2)
If they did that, the EU would suddenly find themselves being described as "part of the axis of evil", and it wouldn't be long before the US tried to invade. The US wages war to ensure that their interests are not disturbed. Copyright is a huge export for the US.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing I could really think of that would be "consequences" would be that European software developers would not have access to Vista, and thus, in theory, applications that those developers have in the pipeline for Vista would be delayed until they got the actual OS.
(And I'm pretty sure these "consequences" I just made up are completely bogus anyway - as I have no experience developing software.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (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".
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
So... you think it was George W. posting that?
Actually, I'm glad that Americans started noticing the effect of their behaviour in the rest of the world.
That's right: in general, you are not much liked.
Even if it emerges only as a persecution complex, I find it relatively positive.
At least you're becoming aware that there is a world outside your borders.
Now, sorry if this sounded like preaching, and of course there are intelligent and educated Americans an
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the stuff with the media player seemed a bit arbitrary to me.
I hate microsoft. I use open office. I try linux now and again but it's still not there for me but most of my tools are now on linux so when I finally make it, the pain will be less.
Still, I think the most effective thing they can do is put the new operating system before the EU and ask them to raise any issues before it goes on sale so microsoft can fix them.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately EU politicians aren't as easily swayed by big US businesses as those in the US.
I don't think European politicians are especially virtuous, but they certainly have a lot less motive to help a US-based monopolist milk their monopoly for all its worth.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the humanity! (Score:2)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22/Lon
the play by plays (Score:4, Funny)
"Ballmer's got the CD and he's headed for the RTM... he shoots, OHH! A bug shuts him down!!! Oh that crowd is really upset"
"Well Tim, that was a close one, he's oh for 10 now, he really needs a break"
"Now Gentoo has control, passes it to Fedora, passes it to SuSE, passes it to Ubuntu, passes it back to SuSE... they seem to have their passing game working really well"
"Well Tim, they have heart but only a small group of the audience seems to be cheering for them"
Sorry.
Oz
Honestly (Score:2, Redundant)
Sad smiley (Score:2)
And as for those of us in Europe who like genue software, it's a ":(("
Just in time for SP 1 (Score:2, Insightful)
Quick...sell, sell! :-) (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
EU Guidelines are on public display. (Score:5, Funny)
MS: I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.
EU: Thats the Display Department.
MS: With a torch.
EU: The lights had probably gone.
MS: So had the stairs.
EU: But you found the plans, didnt you?
MS: Oh yes, they were on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the leopard.
Pure lies by Microsoft (Score:4, Informative)
Vista, the Windows Genuine Competitive Advantage (Score:2)
This is pure unadulteratred FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
Wholy crap! (Score:2)
Trying ... (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You knew I was planning on posting this gag as soon as the article appeared on Slashdot.
I'm never going to tell you anything funny again...
Re: (Score:2)
They wouldn't dare, not when we control David Hasselhoff. The Germans would go on another rampage, and this time, we wouldn't want to stop them.
Re: (Score:2)