Microsoft must pay $1.4bn to EU
- Thread starter Frapple
- Start date
For the average PC user who wants their PC to behave like any other appliance, yes it is.
Why should they have to rely on the retailer, or ticking boxes, or finding software somewhere else to perform something that, these days, is regarded as a basic PC function?
How can that possibly benefit the consumer?
It goes into the central budget, CAP is the largest outgoing from that budget...
good arguement as to why we should have the IE7 opt out.
A better one as to why to leave UAC enabled to run IE7 in protected mode, where it has zero access to any other parts of the system and is run in a sandbox
You could have course run an alternative browser, but as none of them have implemented protected mode yet, it's rather dumb to claim that makes things more secure.
Last edited:
Apparently it is to give the consumer "choice" which is fair enough in principle. Except that the "N" editions of Windows accounted for about 0.1% of sales last year (and most of those were due to stocking orders). This should clearly demonstrate to the EU that all this interference of Microsoft's products isn't wanted by the consumers. Microsoft doesn't just bundle this stuff for the fun of it. Their own market research even back in 1997 indicated that bundling the web browser with the OS is what consumers preferred. Of course back then in the Microsoft anti-trust court case that was misinterpreted over and over again. There is actually a video clip on the 'net somewhere where you hear the judge clearly reading back the market research with a heavily biased and skewed tone in his voice. Meanwhile the camera is focused on Gates whose getting really agitated by it all.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,749
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Quite frankly I would find that would be extremely annoying and inconvenient. Not having an web browser would also be very unfair considering that pretty much every other OS includes this functionality.
9/10 consumers simply wouldn't want the hassle, they use IE, it works for them out of the box and they're happy.
Anyway, going online and downloading a browser isn't much hassle is it? I don't particularly like IE, so I don't use it, my choice and I'm happy with it.
Burnsy
Exactly. The vast majority of Firefox users will have originally used IE (or whatever is the default browser bundled with their particular OS) in order to download Firefox in the first place. Removing IE/Safari/etc from the PC's initial install image will make it extremely difficult for consumers to even "find" these alternative browsers. Not to mention frustrating. Even power users would find it incredibly frustrating.
Don't suppose you could find that?
The EU have spent years with the case and come to this decision - I am confident that they've come to the right decision. It's nothing like EU just fining the nearest large company, which some people seem to think it is. The EU will have come to a very educated decision and will be trying to work in everyone's best interests - it's not EU using Microsoft as a revenue generator or anti-establishment anarchist hippie movement.
Going solely by that BBC news article; it's hardly fair to have components of IE embedded in the operating system when IE rivals presumably can't do the same.
MS have control of a stupendously high percentage of home PC's - which is fine - but they need to allow developers to have as much of an ability to create applications as MS's in-house developers do. Hiding information on programming for Windows, or allowing their own in-house developers to embed bits in Windows to aid their applications, is unfair and will always give MS applications an unfair advantage over rivals.
I'm no expert - it's just my take on things.
Going solely by that BBC news article; it's hardly fair to have components of IE embedded in the operating system when IE rivals presumably can't do the same.
MS have control of a stupendously high percentage of home PC's - which is fine - but they need to allow developers to have as much of an ability to create applications as MS's in-house developers do. Hiding information on programming for Windows, or allowing their own in-house developers to embed bits in Windows to aid their applications, is unfair and will always give MS applications an unfair advantage over rivals.
I'm no expert - it's just my take on things.
Last edited:
They already do, the idea that IE has access to things that other browsers don't is, as NathanE has already discussed, simply wrong.
The fact that firefox et al choose not to use it is not the same thing as it not being available.
but can you really see your parents, and non geeks, etc wanting to go to the hassle of finding other programs and having to pay for them?
They just want everything to come wit the pc, media player, internet browser etc
and for it to work from the start.
I didn't say they shouldn't give things away with Windows.
The BBC article says that IE is unfairly linked with the OS - there must be some justification behind it. Besides, IE is not the sole reason they are being fined.
The only one I know of is MS not giving information required for others to create compatible work group servers, or something like that.
I am very sure that if you traul through the hundereds of pages in PDF documents related to the case, you will find the MS have, without a doubt, been in the wrong. The EU will not issue a fine like this "because they can" - there will be plenty of justification behind it.
The BBC article says that IE is unfairly linked with the OS - there must be some justification behind it. Besides, IE is not the sole reason they are being fined.
The only one I know of is MS not giving information required for others to create compatible work group servers, or something like that.
I am very sure that if you traul through the hundereds of pages in PDF documents related to the case, you will find the MS have, without a doubt, been in the wrong. The EU will not issue a fine like this "because they can" - there will be plenty of justification behind it.
The "unfair linkage" is simply the fact that it is bundled with the OS.
I've never seen Firefox or Opera developers make complaints along the lines of "boo hoo Microsoft won't give us documentation for the IntegrateWithWindows() API call
"... their complaints always seem to be along the lines of "boo hoo Microsoft's IE is bad for the Internet as it doesn't properly support W3C standards".
I've never seen Firefox or Opera developers make complaints along the lines of "boo hoo Microsoft won't give us documentation for the IntegrateWithWindows() API call
"... their complaints always seem to be along the lines of "boo hoo Microsoft's IE is bad for the Internet as it doesn't properly support W3C standards".The "unfair linkage" is simply the fact that it is bundled with the OS.
I've never seen Firefox or Opera developers make complaints along the lines of "boo hoo Microsoft won't give us documentation for the IntegrateWithWindows() API call
You will have seen Sun saying "boo hoo Microsoft won't give us documentation for the IntergrateWithWorkGroups() API call" though
Just about every C++ developer involved with the Win32 API will at some stage wish a certain API was documented or documented better. It's unavoidable. There are a few APIs in iphlpapi.dll that I got Microsoft to document when XP first came out.
I can't imagine Microsoft opening up their workgroups stuff though. That is all knee deep RPC and DCOM stuff. All very proprietary and TBH it is Microsoft intellectual property. Sun should have no expectation for it to be documented. If they really do want to integrate with it then they will need to form a business partnership and share a few $$$,$$$,$$$'s in the process.
The problem Microsoft has is that as soon as they document something they are committed to supporting it. Whereas if it is undocumented they can literally get rid of it whenever they want (major release, service pack, even a hot fix) or drastically change the way it works. Naturally there are certain parts of Windows which always change drastically between each release and it is these areas which are never documented simply because they are too volatile and Microsoft doesn't want to get locked-in to supporting them.
I can't imagine Microsoft opening up their workgroups stuff though. That is all knee deep RPC and DCOM stuff. All very proprietary and TBH it is Microsoft intellectual property. Sun should have no expectation for it to be documented. If they really do want to integrate with it then they will need to form a business partnership and share a few $$$,$$$,$$$'s in the process.
The problem Microsoft has is that as soon as they document something they are committed to supporting it. Whereas if it is undocumented they can literally get rid of it whenever they want (major release, service pack, even a hot fix) or drastically change the way it works. Naturally there are certain parts of Windows which always change drastically between each release and it is these areas which are never documented simply because they are too volatile and Microsoft doesn't want to get locked-in to supporting them.
Yeah maybe so, but it's evidently part of EU anti-trust law for them to have to document it. I'm sure the whole fuss isn't over a single API call or two that MS haven't officially documented, there'd be more to it than that.
From what I can read it isn't just part of an API, it's workgroup server protocols that aren't (or at least weren't when they should have been) documented - and when Sun asked for information on it to create compatible servers, or whatever else they wanted to do, MS point-blank refused to give it - which is illegal in the EU.
Really, if they don't like EU laws, they shouldn't trade in the EU. They're a big company with a massive position in the market, and they have massive responsibilities to face up to in regards to anti-trust laws. If the EU says dominant companies need to provide a certain amount of documentation and comply with interoperability to whatever extent, then they are not in the right to refuse to do so, and they should punish any companies that don't comply.
From what I can read it isn't just part of an API, it's workgroup server protocols that aren't (or at least weren't when they should have been) documented - and when Sun asked for information on it to create compatible servers, or whatever else they wanted to do, MS point-blank refused to give it - which is illegal in the EU.
Really, if they don't like EU laws, they shouldn't trade in the EU. They're a big company with a massive position in the market, and they have massive responsibilities to face up to in regards to anti-trust laws. If the EU says dominant companies need to provide a certain amount of documentation and comply with interoperability to whatever extent, then they are not in the right to refuse to do so, and they should punish any companies that don't comply.
would be hilarious if they turned around and said they wont trade/support windows in Europe and changed the eula so that it was illegal to use in a European country, like a lot of American software says about Cuba, would see companies deserting Europe immediately.
Gah... people are so ignorant when it comes to things like "choice" and "monopolies".
You, as a consumer, do *not* benefit from monopolies, however convenient it might seem in the short term. You are not guaranteed better code, better software, better services. The motivation of lost business is what keeps a business in top condition, and without that motivation the general process is to get lazy.
Half of you seem to think that Microsoft owe you a decent operating system and that by buying the upgrades each time, you are guaranteed the future will be bright. Well, guess what - that isn't true. All that you have done is lined the wallets of those who could dump the entire industry at any moment, with no comeback. The only reason that they don't dump the industry, is that it is so lucrative, but guess what - lucrative doesn't mean quality on your part.
Competition is what fosters innovation. Customer satisfaction is more than just "adding fancy graphics" and more bloat. People have seriously warped views of how businesses work, and have this "sense of entitlement" that doesn't exist until it is too late.
That is one of the things I like about the Free Open Source Software movement - that the motivation to create isn't money. Remember, business is in some sense a popularity competition, if a feature isn't particularly liked or used, it will be dumped or support will be dropped for it - whether you like it or not. Its only when this happens that you will understand...
They don't sell Big Kings in burger king any more... even though I like them and bought them, the business model doesn't work... business is not a magic wand that solves the problems of society...
You, as a consumer, do *not* benefit from monopolies, however convenient it might seem in the short term. You are not guaranteed better code, better software, better services. The motivation of lost business is what keeps a business in top condition, and without that motivation the general process is to get lazy.
Half of you seem to think that Microsoft owe you a decent operating system and that by buying the upgrades each time, you are guaranteed the future will be bright. Well, guess what - that isn't true. All that you have done is lined the wallets of those who could dump the entire industry at any moment, with no comeback. The only reason that they don't dump the industry, is that it is so lucrative, but guess what - lucrative doesn't mean quality on your part.
Competition is what fosters innovation. Customer satisfaction is more than just "adding fancy graphics" and more bloat. People have seriously warped views of how businesses work, and have this "sense of entitlement" that doesn't exist until it is too late.
That is one of the things I like about the Free Open Source Software movement - that the motivation to create isn't money. Remember, business is in some sense a popularity competition, if a feature isn't particularly liked or used, it will be dumped or support will be dropped for it - whether you like it or not. Its only when this happens that you will understand...
They don't sell Big Kings in burger king any more... even though I like them and bought them, the business model doesn't work... business is not a magic wand that solves the problems of society...
The BBC news item does not explain what this fine is about.
If you really want to understand the current fine then read this http://europa.eu/rapid/pressRelease...format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en .
The second from last paragraph says it all.
If you really want to understand the current fine then read this http://europa.eu/rapid/pressRelease...format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en .
The second from last paragraph says it all.