MS settlement "has not been possible"
-
Read it here
-
Read it here
I think MS should just throw in the towel and pull their products from Europe ("if you don't like the way we do business, then we won't do business with you") - that should cause a really big uproar that even the EU commission would hear. Steve
-
I think MS should just throw in the towel and pull their products from Europe ("if you don't like the way we do business, then we won't do business with you") - that should cause a really big uproar that even the EU commission would hear. Steve
I was thinking that if I were Microsoft, that would be a valid plan of action. I don't know, though; someone else said that Europe is responsible for 30% of their revenue. If they do something like that, it would have to be a last-ditch response. I think that Microsoft probably wants Europe at this particular point more than Europe needs them. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
-
I think MS should just throw in the towel and pull their products from Europe ("if you don't like the way we do business, then we won't do business with you") - that should cause a really big uproar that even the EU commission would hear. Steve
-
Read it here
All this so 20% of the people can have a choice of media players - 'cause you know Windows Media Player prevents you from installing others - while the other 80% wonder how in the hell they play those new-fangled music files their grandchild sent them since double-clicking on them asks them to pick a program. "A what? Just play the !@#$ thing!"
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
-
How much would that cost Microsoft as far as revenue and profit go? Michael Martin Australia "I suspect I will be impressed though, I am easy." - Paul Watson 21/09/2003
I read that the fine could be upto upto 10 % of Microsoft's turnover that could be about 3 billion US $. I think its not worth the trouble of pulling out of Europe for that amount (for MS) " Invading armies can be stopped but nothing can stop an idea whose time has come " - Voltaire
-
I was thinking that if I were Microsoft, that would be a valid plan of action. I don't know, though; someone else said that Europe is responsible for 30% of their revenue. If they do something like that, it would have to be a last-ditch response. I think that Microsoft probably wants Europe at this particular point more than Europe needs them. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
-
All this so 20% of the people can have a choice of media players - 'cause you know Windows Media Player prevents you from installing others - while the other 80% wonder how in the hell they play those new-fangled music files their grandchild sent them since double-clicking on them asks them to pick a program. "A what? Just play the !@#$ thing!"
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
How about we lock up put the committee members in a room with PCs that have an internet connection and that do not have any media players installed and then ask them to play a music or video file. Or, demand ask the members that own a large company if it is OK for a small sized competitor to put / advertise / sell their products in the front office. Steve
-
Read it here
There is a very unsubtle irony in the EU's actions. Most of them have significant industries that are nationalized, industries that in the US are private. On that basis, why should they mind Microsoft's monopoly? Or is this simply based on the fact that Microsoft, based in the US and a people-asset business, isn't amenable to confiscation and nationalization?
Software Zen:
delete this; -
There is a very unsubtle irony in the EU's actions. Most of them have significant industries that are nationalized, industries that in the US are private. On that basis, why should they mind Microsoft's monopoly? Or is this simply based on the fact that Microsoft, based in the US and a people-asset business, isn't amenable to confiscation and nationalization?
Software Zen:
delete this;Gary R. Wheeler wrote: There is a very unsubtle irony in the EU's actions. Most of them have significant industries that are nationalized, industries that in the US are private. On that basis, why should they mind Microsoft's monopoly? I think it is very clear on what basis. They are objecting to Microsoft using a monopoly in one area (operating systems) in order to achieve monopoly power in another area (application software, specifically media players). Using monopoly power in one area to achieve monopoly power in another is potentially illegal in most jurisdictions, including the US, though the wording of legislation differs from one jurisdiction to another. Your nationalized industry thing is a red herring anyway. Nationalized industries are often in areas like utilities (electricity etc.) which are monopolies whether or not they are government owned. One of the main arguments for government ownership is that it gives the government some control over the monopoly's behaviour, which is what is being sought in the Microsoft case. Thus, far from being "ironic", it is perfectly consistent. Gary R. Wheeler wrote: Or is this simply based on the fact that Microsoft, based in the US and a people-asset business, isn't amenable to confiscation and nationalization? Your paranoia is showing. The trend in Europe is toward privatization rather than nationalization and (with a few exceptions, notably Hitler's confiscation of some Jewish-owned companies) nationalization has not involved confiscation in the main EU countries. You are confusing the EU nations with some Third World countries. There was confiscation in Eastern Europe, of course, and some of those countries have recently joined the EU. But those same countries are now privatizing, not nationalizing. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
Actually, much closer to 40 billion than 50. I didn't say they couldn't survive, anyway; just that they wanted the revenue from Europe, but that the EU obviously doesn't give a damn any more if they p*ss MS off. It's not like everything in Europe would grind to a halt if everyone there suddenly switched to Star Office. Doing business in Europe is a privilege that Microsoft could very well lose if they keep angering the EU. I don't think they're eager to kiss off 30 percent of their revenue. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
-
Read it here
Does not make any sense to me, Users have a choice of what they can use. Why punish a company for putting their products in their product. Does McDonalds have to put burger king french fries in their happy meals? I just do not understand, why goverments have to be involved in things like this. Microsoft does not go out of its why to stop joe blow from writting their own "media player" or operating system, do they? I also do not understand the people that say they cannot program windows applications with out the source code to windows. But that is another subject.
-
All this so 20% of the people can have a choice of media players - 'cause you know Windows Media Player prevents you from installing others - while the other 80% wonder how in the hell they play those new-fangled music files their grandchild sent them since double-clicking on them asks them to pick a program. "A what? Just play the !@#$ thing!"
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
Heath Stewart wrote: All this so 20% of the people can have a choice of media players - 'cause you know Windows Media Player prevents you from installing others - while the other 80% Even if I smell irony in your post, I think this is still half-assed. The problem is more the automatic file association. Even though users are free to make changes, only advanced users can do it. I am also concerned with the supposed goodness of ubiquity of some piece of software, whether we are talking a web browser, a media player, ... Do you really think it's good to let a company have a 100% marketshare only because you can write software assuming the windows media player is there, or that IE is there? I think such a state of mind only sums up a really unprofessional way of writing software. wtf? Why not reuse small html rendering libs, or media libs? Yes, you hear me right, it's all about educating people. And I don't think I have read much articles about that in many places, including codeproject. In addition, things wouldn't be that bad if components could be installed without admin privileges. This is utterly stupid. I have found myself filling a bug to Redmond a couple weeks ago : the MSI installer plumbing doesn't support "runas" scenarios. This has been acknowledged since then. Surreal.
-
Read it here
Monti is an ass. Always has been. He's a jumped-up civil servant with delusions of grandeur. It is about time more people woke up to the fact that the EU is nothing but an bunch of unelected officials making decisions about our lives without us having an recourse. Lets face it, the EU commissioners have hardly covered themselves with glory over the last 10 years. Corruption is rife, obviously MS didn't grease the right palms this time. Anybody tell me where I can get a list of Monti's company directorships and other external income. Be interesting to see who's pay rolling him. 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
-
Does not make any sense to me, Users have a choice of what they can use. Why punish a company for putting their products in their product. Does McDonalds have to put burger king french fries in their happy meals? I just do not understand, why goverments have to be involved in things like this. Microsoft does not go out of its why to stop joe blow from writting their own "media player" or operating system, do they? I also do not understand the people that say they cannot program windows applications with out the source code to windows. But that is another subject.
Xarx wrote: Does not make any sense to me, Users have a choice of what they can use. Why punish a company for putting their products in their product. Does McDonalds have to put burger king french fries in their happy meals? I just do not understand, why goverments have to be involved in things like this. Microsoft does not go out of its why to stop joe blow from writting their own "media player" or operating system, do they? A better analogy would be monopoly electricity suppliers including the provision of refridgerators or televisions as part of the electricity supply contract. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
Actually, much closer to 40 billion than 50. I didn't say they couldn't survive, anyway; just that they wanted the revenue from Europe, but that the EU obviously doesn't give a damn any more if they p*ss MS off. It's not like everything in Europe would grind to a halt if everyone there suddenly switched to Star Office. Doing business in Europe is a privilege that Microsoft could very well lose if they keep angering the EU. I don't think they're eager to kiss off 30 percent of their revenue. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
see this is where i completely disagree the citizens of europe have the right to choose what their so-called "leaders" do in their name ... dictating terms to a global company that causes it to maybe pull out of that market and thus depriving the citizens of that choice isnt something that should happen without a referendum pi**es me off
-
Heath Stewart wrote: All this so 20% of the people can have a choice of media players - 'cause you know Windows Media Player prevents you from installing others - while the other 80% Even if I smell irony in your post, I think this is still half-assed. The problem is more the automatic file association. Even though users are free to make changes, only advanced users can do it. I am also concerned with the supposed goodness of ubiquity of some piece of software, whether we are talking a web browser, a media player, ... Do you really think it's good to let a company have a 100% marketshare only because you can write software assuming the windows media player is there, or that IE is there? I think such a state of mind only sums up a really unprofessional way of writing software. wtf? Why not reuse small html rendering libs, or media libs? Yes, you hear me right, it's all about educating people. And I don't think I have read much articles about that in many places, including codeproject. In addition, things wouldn't be that bad if components could be installed without admin privileges. This is utterly stupid. I have found myself filling a bug to Redmond a couple weeks ago : the MSI installer plumbing doesn't support "runas" scenarios. This has been acknowledged since then. Surreal.
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: The problem is more the automatic file association. Even though users are free to make changes, only advanced users can do it. Most modern players have such association managers built right in and also have options to maintain those associations if they are "lost". Winamp has had this since the beginning and WMP, Real, and QT all have it now. Whichever one gets installed last and used last will win. Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: I think such a state of mind only sums up a really unprofessional way of writing software. I - and many other developers - think it's a great way of writing component-based software - pretty much the whole point of COM. Why re-write something so non-trivial every time you need such a component. There aren't many good HTML rendering libs out there, and the WebBrowser control is easy to embed, extend, and manipulate. Ever try doing that with Gecko? First of all, forget embedded it in Windows Forms without a wrapper since it didn't license - and therefore doesn't use - actual COM. Windows Media Player, Real (whatever they call it now), and QuickTime all embed nicely too because they support ActiveX containers. Microsoft isn't the only ones provide such capabilities at least in the media player market.
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
-
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: The problem is more the automatic file association. Even though users are free to make changes, only advanced users can do it. Most modern players have such association managers built right in and also have options to maintain those associations if they are "lost". Winamp has had this since the beginning and WMP, Real, and QT all have it now. Whichever one gets installed last and used last will win. Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: I think such a state of mind only sums up a really unprofessional way of writing software. I - and many other developers - think it's a great way of writing component-based software - pretty much the whole point of COM. Why re-write something so non-trivial every time you need such a component. There aren't many good HTML rendering libs out there, and the WebBrowser control is easy to embed, extend, and manipulate. Ever try doing that with Gecko? First of all, forget embedded it in Windows Forms without a wrapper since it didn't license - and therefore doesn't use - actual COM. Windows Media Player, Real (whatever they call it now), and QuickTime all embed nicely too because they support ActiveX containers. Microsoft isn't the only ones provide such capabilities at least in the media player market.
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
Heath Stewart wrote: Most modern players have such association managers built right in and also have options to maintain those associations if they are "lost". Winamp has had this since the beginning and WMP, Real, and QT all have it now. Whichever one gets installed last and used last will win. Technically speaking, yes. Unfortunately, those are not useable from the user standpoint. It's obvious that everyone clicks ok at this point. Something you have also forgotten to mention is that pretty much any media related software (not only players of course, this also includes net downloaders, P2P software, cd burners, ...) that you install tries to redefine that, including the little cd burner you installed last week. I am not talking about you here, only referring to a scenario where, OH MY, someone installs a non-Microsoft software. If you are not convinced yet of how bad the situation is these days... Heath Stewart wrote: I - and many other developers - think it's a great way of writing component-based software - pretty much the whole point of COM. Why re-write something so non-trivial every time you need such a component. This one truely sucks. In addition, you completely missed the point, answering on technicalities although this post is about monopoly related bundling strategies. I have nothing against component software of course. But when it comes to a point that the only way for a player app to work reliably on Windows is to assume the windows media player is installed, I think it falls short in many ways. First and foremost, it means you are ready to take all the bugs for you. Let's get it clear, bugs related to media players, especially with the myriad of player versions out there, are by the thousands. Does it play nice when all you need is say a video renderer or a MP3 player. Take the video renderer, why not rely on DirectShow instead? It's bundled on the OS since Windows 98 and cannot be removed. Of course, a better scenario is to link against a third party .lib/.dll that will allow your software to manage more flexible scenarios (cross-platform for instance, especially when it comes to media related software). Heath Stewart wrote: There aren't many good HTML rendering libs out there, and the WebBrowser control is easy to embed, extend, and manipulate. Ever try doing that with Gecko? One word, htmllite.dll. If you don't know about this one, lookup codeproject. The irony with htmllite.dll is