Microsoft must pay $1.4bn to EU

[colinuk]

I may have missed the point here, but from what i can see, hear and read it looks like this.

Microsoft spend a lot of money, time and effort getting a OS that works better than the others that where out there at the time, make it look nice, have features built in to make it user friendly.

Now they have become a large firm that has a product that people use/want, other companies now want microsoft to let them see how it is writen and let them write other apps, that do the same as what microsoft do in the 1st place, so they can make money? Isnt that busisness suicide?

Maybe the reason 97% share of the OS is windows, is becasue windows is better than the rest? Sure it has flaws, but you know what your getting, has a large user base, gets fixes, updates and 9/10 times does what its meant too. If you wanted to break this 97%, dont complain you cant and its not fair, get off ya bums and come up with somethig new. And when you do, and Bill comes along with a cheque so big you can buy the town your living in, tell him no thanks or do what everyother small company has done, and sell out.

But for the love of god, no one moans about tesco's milk being cheap and forcing milk men out of busisness, or the fact there is only two types of fuel in 90% of petrol stations that limits the sales of other fuels or god forbid we mention the BBC licience fee great rip off... No, lets pick on Microsoft, a firm that worked out what we wanted, then gave it to us, now we sue them for doing a good job LOL....

Again, i may be misinformed, but this is my take on it. If i was MS, id tell the EU to go take a long walk of a small pier, put in the secret code and crash all their PC's! hehe.

<ColiN>

 

[WotDa]

why dont all the mofos just leave MS alone. Not a day goesby without someone filing against them for stupid things. Seems like if you cant compete with them then just sue them.

Yup, I pretty sure the EU can't produce a competitor to Windows.

What a load of tosh!

You said it.

Maybe the reason 92% share of the OS is windows, is because windows is better than the rest?

No. Windows has such a large market share because of the insane amount of businesses that exclusively use Microsoft products.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying Windows is not 'better' than the 'rest.

 

[jas72]

Which is why having a browser built in helps the end user, no?

But it's not 8% is it? I'd hazard a gross generalising guess that around 90% of computer users are just too stupid to use a computer. Microsoft provide a service to the consumer by making it easy.

I'd say the opposite.

I bought recently MS without Media and had media installed within 10 minutes.

It's not about that anyway it's about adding on extras which stifle competition.

You have windows installed media player installed which opens 1st time with their music download page. even when you download a song from a 3rd party site windows would only play it in media player automatically. Great if that's all you want but how are third party software producters supposed to get their players on the market when the company that built the OS already bundles their software with it.


I can't see how you don't recognise that as unfair competition.

 

[colinuk]

How is it unfair?

They write the OS them selfs and put their own code for web browsing and media playing with it.... I just cant see how people say whis is unfair when its their product. Would it still be unfair if they only had 10% of the market? is this what is making people want to sue them for lots of money?

They seem to be in a no win situation, write something that everyone uses and get sued, or fail and make no money... hmm

 

[jas72]

I may have missed the point here, but from what i can see, hear and read it looks like this.

Microsoft spend a lot of money, time and effort getting a OS that works better than the others that where out there at the time, make it look nice, have features built in to make it user friendly.

Now they have become a large firm that has a product that people use/want, other companies now want microsoft to let them see how it is writen and let them write other apps, that do the same as what microsoft do in the 1st place, so they can make money? Isnt that busisness suicide?

Maybe the reason 97% share of the OS is windows, is becasue windows is better than the rest? Sure it has flaws, but you know what your getting, has a large user base, gets fixes, updates and 9/10 times does what its meant too. If you wanted to break this 97%, dont complain you cant and its not fair, get off ya bums and come up with somethig new. And when you do, and Bill comes along with a cheque so big you can buy the town your living in, tell him no thanks or do what everyother small company has done, and sell out.

But for the love of god, no one moans about tesco's milk being cheap and forcing milk men out of busisness, or the fact there is only two types of fuel in 90% of petrol stations that limits the sales of other fuels or god forbid we mention the BBC licience fee great rip off... No, lets pick on Microsoft, a firm that worked out what we wanted, then gave it to us, now we sue them for doing a good job LOL....

Again, i may be misinformed, but this is my take on it. If i was MS, id tell the EU to go take a long walk of a small pier, put in the secret code and crash all their PC's! hehe.

<ColiN>

/arrgh bangs his head against a brick wall

It's not about the OS it's about free software bundled with the OS.

Microsoft can have 100% market share with their OS just don't bundle other software with it thus stifling the software market which is BAD for competition and ultimately for consumers. IF you can't get a good market share for your better media player then you lose.

I can't believe how many really intelligent people would perfer to have a windows media player monopoly!

 

[platypus]

You have windows installed media player installed which opens 1st time with their music download page. even when you download a song from a 3rd party site windows would only play it in media player automatically. Great if that's all you want but how are third party software producters supposed to get their players on the market when the company that built the OS already bundles their software with it.


I can't see how you don't recognise that as unfair competition.

It's not difficult to change.

The fact that most people are too stupid to know how to, or too lazy to actually do it doesn't necessarily mean Microsoft should be punished for providing an easy option!

Edit: Just to clarify: I'm not in favour of Microsofts monopoly.

 

[meghatronic]

Well I hope Microsoft tell them to **** off.

 

[photoshop]

Yup, I pretty sure the EU can't produce a competitor to Windows.


You said it.

eh?
There is no software firm which can compete with MS when it comes to OS's. Thats fact. So would that mean MS has the monoploy on OS's? I doubt it.

 

[jas72]

The trick is not to market your product to 8% of people. But everyone.

Please show me the document I signed at birth stating I had to use Windows, and could never swap?



.... If Firefox, for example was out of the box installed on Windows, that would provide a web browser. I think you fail to under stand the meaning of integrate in this context slightly.

Yes why don't you create a media player that no one will bother with since MS provides one with the OS

You market share is only non MS users = 8%

Very simplified I know but you said yourself most users are dumb and won't go looking for a "better" player if one is provided.

Thanks though for helping me with my arguement

 

[WotDa]

eh?

Seems like if you cant compete with them then just sue them.

Yes why don't you create a media player that no one will bother with since MS provides one with the OS

You market share is only non MS users = 8%

Very simplified I know but you said yourself most users are dumb and won't go looking for a "better" player if one is provided.

Thanks though for helping me with my arguement

What?

 

[jas72]

Good write up of the background here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4956314.stm

Worth a read guys.

 

[colinuk]

But if the media player that comes with the OS is good enough for what you want. why change?

If the other software was that good, we would use it, we dont use it for a reason, its not that much better than the one we have.... why is that MS fault?

Seems to be another nanny care attitude of 'if you cant do it - blame anyone but yourself' and lets pick on *** guys in MS who can do it.

I dont use media player btw, i prefer VLC, bought it and use that as i prefer not having to download codex all the time. I use IE as it does everything i need it too. Why would i pay for firefox if the one i get for free, given to me by the same people who write the OS, does all i need.

Tell me, what does firefox do that IE doesnt? that would want me to pay extra for it?

I am not saying MS have got it all right and everything works 100% or i am agasint compition, but compition is for one reason, to find who is the best, you dont then go out and shoot them for being number one....

ColiN

 

[magick]

Microsoft's software like IE takes advantage of low level calls in the operating system that only microsoft programmers can know about and utilise.

The EU competition commission wants Microsoft to make the low level information available to people like Mozilla so that they can make their software better and faster, and compete on an even footing.

Ever wondered why Internet Explorer loads so fast? It's because Internet Explorer is built and tied in so deeply to the OS.

Firefox is already faster than IE without all the OS integration that IE has so that argument doesn't hold up.

I think the reality is that this is a boaderline protection racket by the EU to line there own pockets.

 

[WotDa]

I dont use media player btw, i prefer VLC, bought it and use that as i prefer not having to download codex all the time. I use IE as it does everything i need it too. Why would i pay for firefox if the one i get for free, given to me by the same people who write the OS, does all i need.

You're getting ripped off slightly if you're paying for free software.

 

[Jono]

I use VLC and Media Player at home, and Media Player, VLC and Winamp at work.

I also use Internet Explorer and Firefox at both home and work.

They're pretty basic, I think this ruling is retarded. Microsoft don't force its OS users to use their browser or media player. If someone wants an alternative they can go and download and/or buy a replacement and use that instead. Not once have I had IE or WMP complain that it was no longer the "default" application for the current task, AFTER I had told it to shut up about it the first time it asked.

If someone actually develops a product sufficiently superior to IE/WMP to warrant the purchase of it then I'm sure it would sell, but come on - there's only so much you can do with a media player/library system and a web browser.

Come to think of it, whatever happened to that 9 year old kid or whatever it was that claimed to have invented a web browser that was 10x the speed of anything else?

 

[magick]

Also behind the scenes a lot of pressure was probably applied by the corporate media broadcasters to bring these cases, because there days are numbered in the internet age and a lot sooner so if they lose dominance on the desktop to media player.

 

[daz]

Firefox is already faster than IE without all the OS integration that IE has so that argument doesn't hold up.

It's not faster to load. And Firefox could be even faster if the information was available to allow 3rd party software to compete on an even playing field.

 

[magick]

Why would i pay for firefox if the one i get for free, given to me by the same people who write the OS, does all i need.

Tell me, what does firefox do that IE doesnt? that would want me to pay extra for it?

Firefox is 100% free and much smoother and faster than IE and add-ons like adblock means there's no choice between the functionality of firefox and IE.

 

[gjrc]

It's not faster to load. And Firefox could be even faster if the information was available to allow 3rd party software to compete on an even playing field.

why should they be allowed to. fine don't bundle the software but why should MS give them all the information with regard to the OS. its their product - they designed it why do they have to give it to third parties.

the only reason i can see is because they have become victims of their own success. not an argument that holds any merit.

 

[scorza]

why should they be allowed to. fine don't bundle the software but why should MS give them all the information with regard to the OS. its their product - they designed it why do they have to give it to third parties.

Because it's illegal not to