Regulators back EC Microsoft ruling
-
Michael P Butler wrote: I don't understand this. What are we missing? The EU is flexing their arms to try to force Microsoft to go open-source. Whatever your stance on open source is, it takes money to put food on the table and a roof over your head. Trying to force a company to be open source when they do have their IP to protect (what they spends $$$ in R&D) is wrong. I mean, why buy the milk when you can get the cow for free? Most companies built on OSS have gone down the toilet. It's only big businesses like IBM with other sources of captial that can afford to open some of their code. What the EU is trying to do is to change the fundamental basis of business since the dawn of capitalism, but what do you expect from a socialist government?
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
Heath Stewart wrote: What the EU is trying to do is to change the fundamental basis of business since the dawn of capitalism, but what do you expect from a socialist government? Don't get me started on what is wrong the with EU :mad: The European Commissioners will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes. Michael But you know when the truth is told, That you can get what you want or you can just get old, Your're going to kick off before you even get halfway through. When will you realise... Vienna waits for you? - "The Stranger," Billy Joel
-
John Cardinal wrote: Are you saying there is some reason why they should change their ways? I don't believe so. The big issue has always been that people should be given choices, and I agree. The thing is that most people that use a computer don't know RAM from HDD space, Windows from linux, or a floppy drive from their ars. In these cases, people just want something that does what they need. They want to watch videos or play music, then a player should be bundled. Windows is an OS for every level of user. If people do know a floppy from their ars, then they probably know they have choices and can download Winamp or RealOne or anything else. It's not like Windows prevents the installation of these packages. I think providing a player on Windows is a good idea, especially for those that don't know any better. If people do know better, then they can opt for a different player. At least both types of people get what they need to do what they want. This just goes to show how government mandates aren't really geared for the people, but for many other reasons. If, for instance, the EU mandates that Microsoft must provide an alternative player in base Windows installation, can you imagine how much AOL (Winamp...still?) and Real Networks (and any others, like Apple though QT does pretty much suck for most non-QT content) might "contribute" to the EU to get their's to be the one that gets installed? If I remember to put my tin foil hat on today I'm sure I could list many other reaons that the government is more interested in how this affects them rather than they people they are supposed to serve.
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
Heath Stewart wrote: The thing is that most people that use a computer don't know RAM from HDD space, Windows from linux, or a floppy drive from their ars. You gave a new meaning to the "Insert a floppy disk on drive A:" message! :omg: :wtf: Perl combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion different sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C with the readability of PostScript. -- Jamie Zawinski
-
Jeff Varszegi wrote: I haven't been able to completely uninstall it, Of course not, it's a component of the operating system, not an optional program. That being said, what I meant was, there is nothing forcing you to use it to play media, you can install other software and choose to use that instead. Jeff Varszegi wrote: I don't work for Real Networks, and I hate their scummy software because it's intrusive We can agree there! Although you forgot to add that it's crappy in addition to be intrusive. Jeff Varszegi wrote: Are you saying, basically, that it's impossible for Microsoft to monopolize by including "free" software with their 95-percent-installed-base OS? Are you really saying that? :-D Nice try!
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar WildeJohn Cardinal wrote: Of course not, it's a component of the operating system, not an optional program. That being said, what I meant was, there is nothing forcing you to use it to play media, you can install other software and choose to use that instead. Ack - logic error: if it is a part of the OS, then *by definition* they are forcing you to use it. Remember, even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat.
-
Heath Stewart wrote: The thing is that most people that use a computer don't know RAM from HDD space, Windows from linux, or a floppy drive from their ars. You gave a new meaning to the "Insert a floppy disk on drive A:" message! :omg: :wtf: Perl combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion different sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C with the readability of PostScript. -- Jamie Zawinski
Well, I guess it's good that ZIP disks are all but dead! :eek:
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
-
How will MS get our of this [^] one? Success has its price, bunch of leaches attach to you. Only good news is that Microsoft will appeal, and the process can take three years. But that is still to debate. Mike M WinInsider.com - News for Microsoftonians
Reading this thread, there seem to be good points for all sides here. I think the big issue is that Microsoft is essentially a monopoly. Pointless analogy disclaimer: Right now, Coke, Pepsi, and other beverage companies all compete. You can go into a grocery store and have your choice of, say, Coke, Pepsi, or many other beverages. Now, let's say the Coke company has 95% share of the beverage market. They could pretty easily make demands on the store owners, saying "You can only sell our product if you don't sell any of the competitor's products.", thus solidifying their monopoly. If they wanted to enter other markets (say, hot dogs), they could in theory use the same tactics to gain market share in other markets, simply by leveraging their existing monopoly. This tactic of Microsoft's is what is getting everyone all riled up IMHO. Individual products should live or die based on their own merits, not just becuase Microsoft makes something and embeds it into the OS. Does it really make sense to embed streaming media in the OS? Sure, most *consumers* probably use it, but most business users probalby don't. But it isn't an option, it's always there, you can't get rid of it. Granted, in this particular case, RealPlayer is not a good example of a "better" program being squashed... I think we are all in agreement that if RealPlayer went away, nobody would really mind... X| Remember, even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat.
-
But the whole issue revolves around Microsoft including a free media player software with their operating system. Where is the wrong in that? As a computer user surely you know that media player isn't compulsory? As a computer user you have a choice if you feel some other software is better you can pay for it or use the free software included. Where is the damage there? It's up to the others to make compelling software that people *want* to buy. What you are in effect defending is a policy that says users can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves and they certainly do not deserve good quality free software to be included with the purchase of an operating system. A little indefensible isn't it? Or do you work for REAL?;)
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar WildeAs someone pointed out in one of the other messages, it is about socialist Europe. Please consider the following points: 1. The services business is just starting up, and the media player might play a big role in this. ...like Apple iTunes. 2. If the bundled media player is acceptable, many people will not want to download and install even a better and free media player. 3. It is up to the individual countries to decide on how they regulate business. Some are protectionist; others are not. As long as existing treaties are not violated, it is ok to say anything. If the people of the particular region does not like it, they can pressure their government. If a majority of the Europeans feel that way, they could challenge the EU decision; but this is too trivial for the people to be bothered. 4. Was this not the same case with IE v/s Netscape? Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
I admire your style quite a bit, but not enough to change my opinion. :) Let me ask this: how many successful lawsuits must there be against Microsoft for you to decide that they may be doing something illegal? I mean, Microsoft has ace lawyers and they're still losing these lawsuits, with the whole world watching. There's no funny business going on, no extortion scam; it's just that they're being found over and over to conduct illegal activity. I'll allow that no legal system is perfect, and some laws should be changed; you must eventually agree at least on the illegality of Microsoft's actions. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
Jeff Varszegi wrote: I'll allow that no legal system is perfect, and some laws should be changed; you must eventually agree at least on the illegality of Microsoft's actions. Honestly, I've always seen a leading innovator being attacked because it's the front runner and therefore most worth attacking. It's just like formula 1 racing. Ferrari is the dominant team and has been for several years now. I'm not a fan of Ferrari, but I would not accept any rule changes that are contemplated specifically to force Ferrari to do worse and "level" the playing field. It's up to the other teams to pick up their game. That's the heart of a free democratic capitalist society.
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar Wilde -
Reading this thread, there seem to be good points for all sides here. I think the big issue is that Microsoft is essentially a monopoly. Pointless analogy disclaimer: Right now, Coke, Pepsi, and other beverage companies all compete. You can go into a grocery store and have your choice of, say, Coke, Pepsi, or many other beverages. Now, let's say the Coke company has 95% share of the beverage market. They could pretty easily make demands on the store owners, saying "You can only sell our product if you don't sell any of the competitor's products.", thus solidifying their monopoly. If they wanted to enter other markets (say, hot dogs), they could in theory use the same tactics to gain market share in other markets, simply by leveraging their existing monopoly. This tactic of Microsoft's is what is getting everyone all riled up IMHO. Individual products should live or die based on their own merits, not just becuase Microsoft makes something and embeds it into the OS. Does it really make sense to embed streaming media in the OS? Sure, most *consumers* probably use it, but most business users probalby don't. But it isn't an option, it's always there, you can't get rid of it. Granted, in this particular case, RealPlayer is not a good example of a "better" program being squashed... I think we are all in agreement that if RealPlayer went away, nobody would really mind... X| Remember, even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat.
Apartently you've never worked as a network administrator. When creating unattended builds for Windows NT (including 2000, XP, and 2003), you can force much of that to not install. You can also set up group policies and installer packages to either remove it (there is a way, just not through Add/Remove Programs) or disable it. The point is all about "choices". Many people argue that users aren't given choices because stuff comes bundled with the OS. When an OS like Windows has 80% or more of the desktop share and 80% of those people don't care and just want something that works, they don't want choices (ever worked with lusers or parents/grandparents like that?). 100% of all people do have the choice to install something else. Another problem in the raging debate (which have followed very closely over the years) is not so much the player application as it is the tie-in with Windows. Take the video preview screen in the Details section of the Windows Explorer on XP. It currently uses Windows Media Player. The fact is that companies - like Real - can integrate their players to do similar things (in the example provided, however, there is not currently a way). They must implement certain COM interfaces or write their codecs to work with any application that uses Windows codecs. When writing any application, you need a contract by which programs abide in order to use them without knowing the source. This is a universal truth. Sometimes a layer is used to generate contracts (like WSDL), but it still comes down to contracts for ubiquitous use. Many of the tie-ins for Windows are documented, but many companies don't implement them. Don't expect government types to understand this, though. The fact that MSHTML and the WebBrowser control (which hosts and provides services to MSHTML) is integrated into the shell means that Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer are seemless. If Mozilla would've licensed COM from Microsoft (instead of writing their own, though very similar) then the question of integrating Mozilla (Gecko engine) into the shell might be a valid concern, but since Mozilla doesn't abide by a common contract (i.e., interfaces), there's no possible way they could do it. Do you expect Microsoft to use any web browser with some sort of artificial intelligence to make it work? Get real. So the debate over the years has been about choices. While such people claim that it's for the users benefit, it's not. Look at the companies pushing for such legislation or funding activist groups. In almost every case it's
-
John Cardinal wrote: Of course not, it's a component of the operating system, not an optional program. That being said, what I meant was, there is nothing forcing you to use it to play media, you can install other software and choose to use that instead. Ack - logic error: if it is a part of the OS, then *by definition* they are forcing you to use it. Remember, even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat.
Navin wrote: Ack - logic error: if it is a part of the OS, then *by definition* they are forcing you to use it. Sigh! If your car comes with an ashtray are you forced to smoke? *That's* logical.
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar Wilde -
I admire your style quite a bit, but not enough to change my opinion. :) Let me ask this: how many successful lawsuits must there be against Microsoft for you to decide that they may be doing something illegal? I mean, Microsoft has ace lawyers and they're still losing these lawsuits, with the whole world watching. There's no funny business going on, no extortion scam; it's just that they're being found over and over to conduct illegal activity. I'll allow that no legal system is perfect, and some laws should be changed; you must eventually agree at least on the illegality of Microsoft's actions. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
You have a point but I have yet to hear any group, government, or other interests say that they will not allow Microsoft to do business in their area. IMO, Microsoft is at the top for a good reason: because no other company has produced such well accepted software. This is not to say that it is the best software there is but at the very least Microsoft has been much more successful on the marketing front.
-
Apartently you've never worked as a network administrator. When creating unattended builds for Windows NT (including 2000, XP, and 2003), you can force much of that to not install. You can also set up group policies and installer packages to either remove it (there is a way, just not through Add/Remove Programs) or disable it. The point is all about "choices". Many people argue that users aren't given choices because stuff comes bundled with the OS. When an OS like Windows has 80% or more of the desktop share and 80% of those people don't care and just want something that works, they don't want choices (ever worked with lusers or parents/grandparents like that?). 100% of all people do have the choice to install something else. Another problem in the raging debate (which have followed very closely over the years) is not so much the player application as it is the tie-in with Windows. Take the video preview screen in the Details section of the Windows Explorer on XP. It currently uses Windows Media Player. The fact is that companies - like Real - can integrate their players to do similar things (in the example provided, however, there is not currently a way). They must implement certain COM interfaces or write their codecs to work with any application that uses Windows codecs. When writing any application, you need a contract by which programs abide in order to use them without knowing the source. This is a universal truth. Sometimes a layer is used to generate contracts (like WSDL), but it still comes down to contracts for ubiquitous use. Many of the tie-ins for Windows are documented, but many companies don't implement them. Don't expect government types to understand this, though. The fact that MSHTML and the WebBrowser control (which hosts and provides services to MSHTML) is integrated into the shell means that Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer are seemless. If Mozilla would've licensed COM from Microsoft (instead of writing their own, though very similar) then the question of integrating Mozilla (Gecko engine) into the shell might be a valid concern, but since Mozilla doesn't abide by a common contract (i.e., interfaces), there's no possible way they could do it. Do you expect Microsoft to use any web browser with some sort of artificial intelligence to make it work? Get real. So the debate over the years has been about choices. While such people claim that it's for the users benefit, it's not. Look at the companies pushing for such legislation or funding activist groups. In almost every case it's
Heath Stewart wrote: So the debate over the years has been about choices. While such people claim that it's for the users benefit, it's not. Look at the companies pushing for such legislation or funding activist groups. In almost every case it's about business and loosing profits, not the consumer. While I don't doubt at all that these lawsuits are probably not about customers.. there are many a business who can't compete because they have inferior products, not because the OS is stamping them out. But customers do have legitimate concerns. Could I install Windows without all of the crap that I don't want? Maybe, by going through excruciating pains, but since so much is "part of the OS", I can't be sure. If a security issue comes up with IE, even if I use Mozilla all the time, it is still an issue for me becuase IE is part of the OS. If I simply want to use something different, I can, but if I want to completely get rid of some of those so-called OS components, many times I cannot. And while often there are well-defined, published ways of linking applications into the OS, many times there aren't... or there are, but Microsoft also provides a better, undocumented way to link its own stuff in. If they didn't have a 95% share of the desktop OS market, that would be fine. But as it is, it means third-party applications will always be a step behind. Remember, even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat.
-
Michael P Butler wrote: I don't understand this. What are we missing? The EU is flexing their arms to try to force Microsoft to go open-source. Whatever your stance on open source is, it takes money to put food on the table and a roof over your head. Trying to force a company to be open source when they do have their IP to protect (what they spends $$$ in R&D) is wrong. I mean, why buy the milk when you can get the cow for free? Most companies built on OSS have gone down the toilet. It's only big businesses like IBM with other sources of captial that can afford to open some of their code. What the EU is trying to do is to change the fundamental basis of business since the dawn of capitalism, but what do you expect from a socialist government?
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
Heath Stewart wrote: I mean, why buy the milk when you can get the cow for free? I know what you're sayin', man! I've been buying milk by the gallon, trying to make it into some sort of curdled milk cow... but it just ain't the same. Ah, if only someone would give me a free cow... :sigh: How do you move in a world of fog, That's always changing things? Makes me wish that i could be a dog, When i see the price that you pay.
-
How will MS get our of this [^] one? Success has its price, bunch of leaches attach to you. Only good news is that Microsoft will appeal, and the process can take three years. But that is still to debate. Mike M WinInsider.com - News for Microsoftonians
Microsoft will deal with this the way it always does leverage its huge size to its advantage. BTW I don't see any reaction to this on the stock exchange
My neighbours think I am crazy - but they don't know that I have a trampoline. All they see my head bobbing up and down over the fence every five seconds
-
Heath Stewart wrote: So the debate over the years has been about choices. While such people claim that it's for the users benefit, it's not. Look at the companies pushing for such legislation or funding activist groups. In almost every case it's about business and loosing profits, not the consumer. While I don't doubt at all that these lawsuits are probably not about customers.. there are many a business who can't compete because they have inferior products, not because the OS is stamping them out. But customers do have legitimate concerns. Could I install Windows without all of the crap that I don't want? Maybe, by going through excruciating pains, but since so much is "part of the OS", I can't be sure. If a security issue comes up with IE, even if I use Mozilla all the time, it is still an issue for me becuase IE is part of the OS. If I simply want to use something different, I can, but if I want to completely get rid of some of those so-called OS components, many times I cannot. And while often there are well-defined, published ways of linking applications into the OS, many times there aren't... or there are, but Microsoft also provides a better, undocumented way to link its own stuff in. If they didn't have a 95% share of the desktop OS market, that would be fine. But as it is, it means third-party applications will always be a step behind. Remember, even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat.
Navin wrote: but Microsoft also provides a better, undocumented way to link its own stuff in. Despite this accusation being thrown around, in the fifteen years I've been programming Windows, I've yet to seen it actually proven. The closest I've seen were APIs that were clearly hacks in early alpha builds, but for which an API published prior to release (and the developers never removed the old call, either because they forgot, or they had to so much hack the hack that simple replacement wasn't.) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Microsoft will deal with this the way it always does leverage its huge size to its advantage. BTW I don't see any reaction to this on the stock exchange
My neighbours think I am crazy - but they don't know that I have a trampoline. All they see my head bobbing up and down over the fence every five seconds
JWood wrote: BTW I don't see any reaction to this on the stock exchange Most investors have already factored the loss into the stock price. (It's been clear from the beginning that Microsoft was going to lose the case, the only question has been what the penalty would be. Investors have decided that at this point, it really doesn't matter.) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Navin wrote: but Microsoft also provides a better, undocumented way to link its own stuff in. Despite this accusation being thrown around, in the fifteen years I've been programming Windows, I've yet to seen it actually proven. The closest I've seen were APIs that were clearly hacks in early alpha builds, but for which an API published prior to release (and the developers never removed the old call, either because they forgot, or they had to so much hack the hack that simple replacement wasn't.) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
That's the thing, it's very difficult to prove (or disprove.) However I do know I've seen *lots* of undocumented functions in MFC. Fortunatley since it comes with source, those can be found and figured out. I've also seen (and once even been recommended to use!) undocumented Windows messages. So based on that information, it would surprise me greatly if there weren't undocumented APIs. (Microsoft won't deny that it uses undocumented APIs... that doesn't mean that it does, but it makes you wonder..) Of course, lots of that kind of stuff is *poorly* documented, but that's another subject matter altogether. :rolleyes: Remember, even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat.
-
How will MS get our of this [^] one? Success has its price, bunch of leaches attach to you. Only good news is that Microsoft will appeal, and the process can take three years. But that is still to debate. Mike M WinInsider.com - News for Microsoftonians
I liked this quote: '"We spend millions of dollars trying to reverse-engineer Windows so as to allow our server software to work with it", said Lee Patch, Sun's vice president for legal affairs.' Something about the guy in charge of legal maneuvering being named Patch strikes me as funny :laugh:.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Jeff Varszegi wrote: I'll allow that no legal system is perfect, and some laws should be changed; you must eventually agree at least on the illegality of Microsoft's actions. Honestly, I've always seen a leading innovator being attacked because it's the front runner and therefore most worth attacking. It's just like formula 1 racing. Ferrari is the dominant team and has been for several years now. I'm not a fan of Ferrari, but I would not accept any rule changes that are contemplated specifically to force Ferrari to do worse and "level" the playing field. It's up to the other teams to pick up their game. That's the heart of a free democratic capitalist society.
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar WildeYou presuppose a motive that doesn't exist. You should support this or give it up. The government has nothing to gain by attacking Microsoft. Can you name another case in which the government just decided to go after the most successful company in an industry for the fun of it? Someone who wasn't monopolizing, I mean? Let me ask you this: are you saying that the rulings against Microsoft are without merit? I mean, are they illegal? You realize that if you say yes, you're going against an entire justice system full of legal experts, don't you? All because you believe that Microsoft COULDN'T POSSIBLY have done anything illegal. I qualify your belief as a religion. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
-
JWood wrote: BTW I don't see any reaction to this on the stock exchange Most investors have already factored the loss into the stock price. (It's been clear from the beginning that Microsoft was going to lose the case, the only question has been what the penalty would be. Investors have decided that at this point, it really doesn't matter.) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Which is another way of saying that this is a done deal, and the current event we are blabering is just a formality.
My neighbours think I am crazy - but they don't know that I have a trampoline. All they see my head bobbing up and down over the fence every five seconds
-
You have a point but I have yet to hear any group, government, or other interests say that they will not allow Microsoft to do business in their area. IMO, Microsoft is at the top for a good reason: because no other company has produced such well accepted software. This is not to say that it is the best software there is but at the very least Microsoft has been much more successful on the marketing front.
IMO, Microsoft is at the top for a good reason: because no other company has produced such well accepted software. Circular reasoning: they're at the top because they're at the top. Their software is the most well-accepted because they produce the most well-accepted software. Regards, Jeff Varszegi