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."
Waves of Mass histeria (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Waves of Mass histeria (Score:4, Insightful)
My $0.02 on unbundling Windows is that it would be a bad thing for the reasons the parent specified. The thing about Windows is: it just freakin' works for the non-technically-inclined. Take this bundling away from them and POOF! They're lost.
Re:Waves of Mass histeria (Score:5, Insightful)
Requiring computers to be sold without an OS is just asking for trouble. Most people out there, even today, and probably worse than in the past, aren't going to want to install one. And that assumes that they even know how. Worse still are the times when the authentication server for Windows is down, and people have to call in.
If this is put into place, I rather think that MS is going to do better, and that Apple will probably sell more computers, just fewer people will use OSX. I could be wrong, but it seems like this would damage OSX far more than Windows.
I just don't see how this is ultimately in the best interests of the anybody.
Re:Waves of Mass histeria (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft having trouble with their authentication servers can't be a reason not to allow fair access to their competitors. They will either get it fixed or lose business.
There is no reason to make people get their OS elsewhere, just offer a choice of (customized) OS installation CD's to be included at full retail price.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would agree with you if this was 10 years ago. In the meantime I learned, though, that the products aren't dictated by what the user wants but by what the industry wants, at least in markets where there is a monopoly involved. I'm fairly sure that a fair amount of people reading here want non-bundled hardware, still Dell and HP will not sell an unbundled PC. If the customer dictated what the market offers (which would be the ideal
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:Waves of Mass histeria (Score:5, Insightful)
There was an article in our local paper last week about people throwing away malware infested computers because it cost more to clean them than replace them.
Does that sound like Windows is "just freakin' working"?
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people don't understand and will go for the option they know about. On that basis, if Linux is to make serious inroads into the desktop arena, they need a marketing push as big as that performed by Microsoft. This is th
This is TERRIBLE! Stop the socialist commies! (Score:2, Funny)
Anonymous Coward Sig 2.0:
--
Write George W. Bush in for president in 2008!
Linux is communist!
Re:Waves of Mass histeria (Score:5, Insightful)
But why?
Have a look at this laptop from a second-tier computer builder's website [pioneercomputers.com.au]. Scroll about a third of the way down the page to the "Operating Systems" checkbox. Note that you can choose between None, Ubuntu, XP, and a collection of Vista versions.
Imagine a future version of the same field, but with "MacOS XVIII", "Plan 10" "FreeBeOS", "ReactOS Hurd", "AmigaOS Phoenix", etc, etc in the list. Real choice, in other words.
Now imagine a world where you could click any one of those OS choices and be confident your data would be usable, that you could connect to any network you needed to, that your investment in software would be portable. A world where you could choose your OS based on price, performance and personal taste, not on format lockin and obfuscated communication protocols.
That's the world Microsoft is fighting against.
Re:Waves of Mass histeria (Score:4, Insightful)
Great, when you can find me that version of Alibre 3D design software that runs on Windows, Mac, and Ubuntu, let me know... Heck, when you find a common version of a spreadsheet program that runs on those three platforms let me know! I know this is /. and hating MS is de rigeur, but in some cases having a monopoly platform is what enabled the explosion in IT and the penetration of computers into the corporate and home worlds. I remember the way things were back in the late 70s and early 80s. I remember headaches trying to get a Wang document to translate to an Osborne CP/M system.
Having a common platform, and for some applications a completely common interface, is really a good thing. Think cars, road dimensions, and gas nozzle sizes. Standardizing is the important thing here - your car can pretty much drive on any road, and stop at any gas station because of these standards.
If you want to do the BEST thing for the consumer world, don't push to add lots more choices to the OS platform; that's going to end up with the BlueRay/HD-DVD issue where J6P doesn't know what to buy, so chooses not to participate. Push to get a stable, common API exposed on that platform - whoever supplies it - and go from there.
Push to standardize the meanings of common icons - file save/open/new; copy/cut/paste; help/e-mail/launch web; and other common tasks. So that J6P can sit down in front of your application and intuitively know what to do.
Otherwise you'll always end up with people sticking with what they know. Because the reality most people simply want to do the task at hand with the least amount of effort - INCLUDING effort to learn a new application interface. If they're familiar with the Excel interface, then getting them to change to something else is near-Herculean.
Choice is only useful to those who understand their choices; to the rest, it's needless obfuscation, anxiety, and yet another barrier to entry.
Re:Waves of Mass histeria (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course you wouldn't. Because it's just plain stupid. So why on god's green earth should MS be allowed to create the standard for the computing world? They shouldn't. Someone else (say, ISO, only without the bribery) should be in charge of the standards. And then let people choose on which company best delivers on those standards.
As for you comment about too many choices, give Joe SixPack default options and recommendations. Or hell, let him go into the store and ask what he should get for his computer. If he's not smart enough to know what his computer should do, then why is he customizing a computer? That's like letting me try and customize a car. I don't know enough about it, and I will either do my research, or ask for the opinion of the salesman. The point is, Joe SixPack should be given the opportunity to pick what he wants, but also offered a default option should he not fully understand his choices. It's like default/advanced install options. The default is good for the average user. For those who know what they're doing, let them screw with the advanced options.
But hey. That's just me and my two cents.
Re:Waves of Mass histeria (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Waves of Mass histeria (Score:5, Insightful)
Is driving a car intuitive? No, you must first be taught and learn how to do so. After you acquire the basic knowledge, you then have the cognitive tools to be able to adapt.
Is that to say things have to be needlessly complex? No, but then let the *market* decide that for themselves. It's one thing to give people choice, it's totally another to *remove* choice. And that's what Microsoft has done, using any tactic possible to hinder or outright prevent any choice other than Microsoft.
Yes, choice is only useful for those who understand. Now ask yourself the question, how useful is understanding when you have no choice?
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
A - sell the laptops as is and wait for clueless customers to call back in an angry mood, or
B - put a free linux cd together with the laptops ordered without the windows option?
What if the linux cd doesn't work well with the hardware, you say? I say that if Microsoft is not allowed to strongarm hardware makers anymore we will see hardware which is easier to get to work under linux, like friggin old hardware
Bad News For Macs (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should Windows be the only OS singled out to be unbundled? Let's stop these double standards.
Exactly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (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
Re:Bad News For Macs (Score:4, Insightful)
Rhetorical hypothetical question... but is it sheer coincidence that both BeOS and NeXT became liabilities when they decided to target x86 architectures and unbundle their OS? OR, was this destined to happen anyway due to their own proprietary platforms and was a last gasp for air from any desperate company before sinking with their ship?
(I'm not suggesting NeXT failed in the market place, but you have to admit I think Steve was relieved when they merged with Apple.)
The reason apple have gotten away with it so far is that they dont bundle apps with the OS, but more apps with the hardware like dell 'bundles' AOL, Windows etc -- Apple bundles iLife and iwork trials.
YES the new policy would mean Apple would have to think about changing strategy, but I do believe that making it illegal to bundle an OS with a computer would be one of the best things to happen in recent times for the Consumer.
You could argue that Apple only has its name left to protect..... but if that argument is true then OSX is always associated with Apple. The reality of it is, I don't believe the majority of those valid OSX licenses own the Vista license they bootcamp from. XP yes? but you could hardly turn a corner without XP being peddled almost free of charge once.
I do however think that the price of OSX would go up to the $180 -$200 mark because in the past the hardware and limited marketshare subsidized the price of the software. I might even consider putting it on my Linux box.... or maybe not.
Yes,I like my Linux and my macs... I'm no apple fan boy but I despise what MS has done to the industry more than I love Steve Jobs.
I for one, welcome our new hardware overlords without Pre-installed crap, just think! this would mean no more AOL and Norton trials
What I've said for years is that "Software should be written for the hardware, NOT the other way around" Would we all not be happy if soft 'win' modems never existed? In the vision the EU wants.... they never would have.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or well, how they are better I already know, but you understand my question
Re: (Score:2)
MS is a convicted monopolist (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not necessarily illegal to have a monopoly. However, it is illegal to exploit the monopolistic position in certain ways, to the detriment of the free market. MS has been found guilty of various transgressions and has paid out billions of dollars in fines and settlements. MS became a monopoly by illegal coercive means and maintains its position through the same illegal coercive means. That is the problem.
Re:Bad News For Macs (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should Windows be the only OS singled out to be unbundled? Let's stop these double standards.
Sigh. How many times must this be pointed out? Apple don't have a monopoly on consumer operating systems. How in hell do you think it makes sense to protect the market from monopoly abuse by placing limits on non-monopolies? There is no double-standard, there is one standard: if monopolies harm the market they have restrictions placed on them.
If they don't (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Windows and MacOS directly compete. They are two different OSes for the same basic market (average home users). The fact that Apple is a one vendor solution isn't relevant, it is still competition in the same market. Well, if that's the case, MS doesn't have a monopoly. Apple has a small but stable (and even growing lately) marketshare. They've been around for decades, so clearly MS is not a monopoly and hasn't forced them out.
2) Windows and MacOS do not
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
Uh, no. (Score:5, Informative)
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..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Another thing is, it would have to be mandated that ActiveX on the Public Internet be banned, WMA DRM banned and AAC DRM banned. That would level the playing feild.
Re: (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.
Re: (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,
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".
Re:The problem with this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could read directions/instructions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. Turn on computer, it says "insert disc", you insert disc and wait a while. That is all there would be to install the OS if a kickstart wrapper were used. Think of it as an OS-loader program, already able to provide any missing drivers, custom for that hardware, supplied by the manufacturer. It is no l
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The problem with this (Score:5, Insightful)
> wants and give prices for them to their customer for every new PC sale. That would
> promote fair market better than "banning bundling".
That _would_ be unbundling. Bundling is "This computer comes with Microsoft Windows factory installed. It is included in the price".
Re: (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 pho
What needs to be done (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (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.
IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
WinTax and the MS Monopoly (Score:2)
It wouldnt really effect that much (Score:2)
It doesnt mean they are required to support these operating systems and they can still say "we recommend windows whatever". What might happen is that dell
might actually ask their hardware suppliers to provide linux drivers which could be a good thing.
Apple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other side of the coin, I wonder if we'll ever see OSX as an option on a Dell or HP computer...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not just stop all bundling? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why stop with a computer. When you buy a car, why allow tires, lights, sound system, seats, brakes, and the stearing wheel to be bundled with the car? Belts must be sold without belt buckles, shoes without shoe laces or velcro straps, lawnmowers without engines, .
The list is endless in the way we are inconvenienced by having to buy a product that works(ish) right out of the box.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a stupid analogy and you know it. Perhaps if 95% of computers were sold with a single brand of motherboard from a convicted and power-abusing monopoly, fine. But that hasn't happened. There are dozens of different motherboard and memory manufacturers, more than several hard drive or video card manufacturers, and even three major X86 CPU manufacturers (Intel, AMD, an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bingo (Score:4, Insightful)
For those who want MS-Windows and want a customized install, OEM's can create appropriate "kickstart" CD's to wrap the loading of MS-Windows with all the appropriate drivers and addons. Pop in disk and wait. Plus, no more missing "recovery" discs.
I recommend MS can sell Vista only ( no more xp) (Score:5, Funny)
They also need to look the forced driver singing.. (Score:2)
And this is a big thing as the next windows may lock down unsigned code
"Broken" Computers (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Playing DVD's requires EXTRA software (Broken Media Player)
2. Writing and Spell-Checking documents requires EXTRA software (broken wordpad)
3. Email Security requires EXTRA software (broken outlook)
4. viewing certain file types requires EXTRA software (indeo codec, broken due to licenses).
5. Recording sounds longer than 30 seconds requires EXTRA software (
IBM - deja vu all over again (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, IBM was the big bad monoply way back when. But we need to remember that the BIG anti trust finding with IBM that relates to the OS wars of today is that it was found to be illegal for IBM to bundle OS-360 with its IBM-360 hardware. The release of the OS from the 360's hardware was what allowed Gene Amdahl and others to split off and form IBM-360-clone companys. It was an anti-trust decision that required the unbundling of the OS.
The big difference here is that rather than one company (Microsoft) bundling its OS with its own hardware, Microsoft has contracts with all the PC vendors that require them to bundle. So it is one step removed from the IBM situation.
The question (that has been asked before by the likes of Judge Jackson) is: what can be done about these very private contracts?
Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Am I the only one who was clueless about what the subject of the story was when he read the title?
Anyways, I think this is a terrible idea.
Instead it should go like this:
But forcing them not to ever include the OS will just piss a lot of users off, even though they are lame windows users they do deserve some empathy I guess...
Would be fun since they are not really MS-specific so if this idea gets executed it will be a no for Dell's ubuntu PCs and more enjoyable it will also screw Apple pretty badly...
Simpler solution (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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..
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: (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
All "isms" break down. This is good for everyone. (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft has reached a functional monopoly on commodity computers. This is a fact and not subject to argument at this point in time. The problem is what to do to limit it's affect on the free market?
I was uncomfortable with the EU forcing Windows to be broken up, they is determining what MS could do internally and that seemed wrong. However, the unbundling seems like a perfect solution.
Personally, I HATE having to buy windows or jump through hoops to get my money back, and that is the wrong the consumers need corrected.
Just like RAM size or hard disk size or CPU, consumers need to see a line item and associated costs. This helps the OEMs because now they can focus on their business and compete on a level playing field -- not on the whim of Microsoft's vendor agreements for Windows costs.
Any OEM daring to offer Linux or other alternative gets threatened by Microsoft's license discount process. This will take that advantage away. The OEMs won't be held hostage by Microsoft's pricing blackmail.
Consumers' will see the real price of the bug-ridden filth that is Windows and be able to make a real choice.
Microsoft will be able to built Windows they way the want without EU interference and will be free to compete on a level playing ground.
The only loss is the bundled "default" windows win. Microsoft will have to, again, work to get and keep its customers.
No one loses.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you're wrong.
Microsoft's monopoly depends on a legally protected special privilege, which is already anti free-market. Removing the privilege would be a difficult option, so attacking one of the symptoms (bundling is also a consequence of monopoly, not just a cause) is being recommended instead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting...(Caution, Spoiler Alert) (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is this: I DONT WANT WINDOWS... (Score:5, Insightful)
Answer: I can't.
Yes, there's some places to get one but they cost the same, or more, as a computer with Windows.
How can this be when a retail copy of Windows costs {$hundreds}?
"Unbundling" doesn't mean you won't be able to buy computers with Windows preinstalled, it removes the "bundle" aspect of the deal. Windows should be an extra and it should cost more than the basic model.
the "non-bundle" PC could even be the exact same machine but missing the plastic card with the license key printed on it. When you switch it on it says "(a) Enter Windows license key", "(b) Format disk".
It doesn't need to inconvenience anybody. It just needs to remove Microsoft's automatic inclusion in the sales loop.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was in my lifetime you could still buy a bare-bones computer and then decide what OS you wanted with it
The popular choices were DOS, Win3.11, OS2 and later Win95.
All the manufacturers and retailers had to do was to comply with the IBM PC standards to make it work.
Presently the big brands will include hardware that needs drivers so special and undocumented that only a version for Windows is made and (especially) supported.
I want the choice of a bare-bones computer
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Aside from that, in all modern "free markets", abuse of monopolistic power (as MS has done countless times) is *illegal* and subject to regulation. Or do you think it would be OK if you had to pay $2,000 a month to the monopoly power company for a 1,500ft^2 home?
Monopolies are bad for business, bad for innovation, bad for consumers. Some are unavoidable... but if you can stop a monopoly from ruining consumer choice simply by stating it isn't allowed to "bundle" under other products, then why the hell not?
What would you think if just about every retail TV sold had a Kodak DVD player bundled with it? What if you didn't WANT a Kodak DVD player? What if you wanted a blueray player, or a different brand, or already owned a DVD player and didn't want to pay for one yet again? What if you found out the only way you could avoid that bundle was to buy a few obscure TV models, on-line, but they cost almost the same anyway, since they are obscure? This is the type of market abuse that MS has enjoyed for waaaay too long.
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Funny)
Well, they're good for somebody. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it took 1-2 hours to plug in and configure a DVD player, and the TV couldn't work without one, I'd expect the TV to be bundled with one.
A computer needs an OS to run and it takes me about an hour (a 'regular' person 2 - 3hrs) to install, update, and configure an OS.
Is it unreasonable for a computer to be bundled with an OS? Of course not. Windows is, by far, the most
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That is why it is significant that a think tank that generally advocates free-market recognizes that there are places where exceptions need to be made, and this is
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
They assist primarily with copyright law, but also with trademark law and trade secret law. They also assist with the laws that define corporations and give them rights as if they were people. There is a whole host of ways in which government assists just about any corporation. IMHO, a corporation can not be thought of separate from the government and laws that allow it to exist as a legal entity.
Re: (Score:3)
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... :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On one hand, while it is possible for more than one generator to exist on the same lines, it is impossible to distinguish which generator is producing which power; forcing the primary electric company in an area to allow competitors to 'use its power lines' would be absurd for technical reasons.
No, it isn't. We have such a system where I live, and it works well. We have one company that owns the grid, but multiple producers. Customers have to use the one grid company, but can choose which producer they want to produce their electricity.
How can you know that the electricity you use came from your producer? You can't, but that is also pretty irrelevant. You don't worry that the money that comes out of the ATM is the actual bills you used to make the deposit, do you? The same applies here.
Your
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
- No hydroelectric power. Large hydroelectric plants are not anywhere close to large consumers, and are too large for any individual consumer, making them unfeasible.
- No nuclear plants. Ditto.
- Much lower efficiency termic power. Coal/fuel plants improve in efficiency when very large scale. A large fuel plant gets about 50% efficiency, due to heat recovery methods. Individual generators -- the portable kind -- are closer to 10% efficiency.
- No load balancing for wind power. Wind power, while efficient, requires load balancing in the grid, like dams pumping water upstream, in order to cope with the fluctuations of power production vs consumption.
- No load balancing for solar power. Ditto.
Maybe individual power is really even less feasible than you might realize.Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
While we're doing that, you might want to look up the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist".
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Correcting you on (2), (3) -- those are too generalized. There are people in each country of EU who hate EU and those who like it. On (4) - EU is not telling the world how to do business. At least not as much as the USA is tryin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No need to ask God. We've already had this situation, and we developed multi-plataform tools that took most problems of interoperability away.
But I can understand how, nowadays, somebody couldn't even know that multiplataform programming exists.