Microsoft in new EU action

afraser2k

afraser2k

afraser2k

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
7,520
Location
Glasgow
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4740638.stm

Microsoft rivals have filed a complaint at the European Commission, saying the firm competes unfairly and is dragging its heels over a 2004 court ruling.

They want an end to practices they say reinforce Microsoft's monopolies, and for it to comply with the court ruling forcing it to share software codes.
Click to expand...

Seems like the group of companies that are filing the new complaint have got fed up with Microsoft continuing it's monopoly on the market. This time it doesn't seem to be about a particular component but rather their general business practice.

Wonder if this will delay Vista/Office 12?
 
why is this always happening to MS they make a market leading product and others just cant seem to lead them alone, of course they have a monopoly nearly everyone uses their products
 
Aslong as i have my working computer that i can do what i need to do, i'm not complaining about their business or coding techniques.
 
The EU's 2004 ruling said the firm had abused its dominant market position
Click to expand...
What, by barely advertising and producing the only real viable operating system solution due to it's compatibility? Give me a break. I'm not singing their praises but if a company could produce an alternative that wouldn't give the headaches with drivers, compatibility etc I'm sure it would sell. I've tried to ply other products like Linux and OpenOffice to customers but they still won't use it even though it's free because it's either slower than the MS equivalent or causes compatibily issues. If you can't plug it in and it works then people won't use it.
 
Yay, another bash microsoft and sod the end user action, just like the last one.....

MS are an easy target, sadly. The EU needs to pay for it's crisis somehow...
 
I think search engine companies should sue Google for monopolising the search engine market. ;)

Seems like this action though is just to get the EU to enforce it's original ruling, rather than waiting for some lengthy legal battle with Microsoft.
 
this doesn't benefit the end use though. MS can't help the fact that they are the biggest player in the OS market and the popularity of their software gives them a monopoly. I can't really see there being companies offering realistic alternatives to joe on the street beyond apple, who don't do too badly themselves.
 
lets face it nearly everyone uses Windows, I might be typing this on my mac with OSX, but I have a windows laptop downstairs, even my mac has MS office on it, lets face it microsoft make easy to use products thats why we all use them, I mean really can we really be bothered trying to get linux to work
 
afraser2k said:
I think search engine companies should sue Google for monopolising the search engine market. ;)

Seems like this action though is just to get the EU to enforce it's original ruling, rather than waiting for some lengthy legal battle with Microsoft.
Click to expand...

Google don't have a monopoly though, they just have a good service that is very much in the public conciousness, its not as if there are no alternate search engines... The only reason I use google over something like metacrawler or alltheweb is that their advertising is much less conspicuous

Microsoft on the other hand you have three choices

accept it
learn to use linux (some people don't even know what that is)
or buy a new computer and use OSX
 
Nix said:
You have no idea what MS have been up to then have you?
Click to expand...

Indeed I do - what with working in the industry for the past 14 years I'm more than familiar with what MS have "done".
I'm also familiar with the old law suits and the new ones.

This is another typical "get at MS" issue - they are a successful company so let us attack them rather than promote our own products.
Did you know that in "real terms" the price of Windows has not actually increased significantly since the release of Windows 95?
When you look at the price of the "Retail Upgrade" prices and realise that Windows NT 4 & Windows 2000 never had "Home" versions and you use Windows XP Home.
This actually goes against MS being a monopoly as any monopoly will increase their prices as the end consumer has no choice what so ever.

The last "EU Action" against Microsoft benefitted nobody.
MS being told to remove software from their own OS - so instead of the OS being able to do "everything" out of the box (so any Tom, Dick or Harry can start doing whatever they like) they were told to cripple the OS and force people to look around and get confused.

Countries Vs Microsoft - The ONLY winners are the lawyers.
 
TBH I don't care what Microsoft do, as long as the end product works and is the best available.

A monopolized industry is ultimately bad for the end-consumer because there is no competition and therefore they can charge/do what they please.

Diamonds aren't actually rare, they're just expensive because they're monopolized by one family who charge lots.
 
Nix said:
Diamonds aren't actually rare, they're just expensive because they're monopolized by one family who charge lots.
Click to expand...

Debeers :) anyone else remember a year or two back when they went on a big 'if you don't buy real diamonds you hate your loved ones' kick?

They don't just charge lots, they have massive stockpiles of them, and create an artificial demand by trickling them out.

a few companies sprang up a few years ago with a technique to produce flawless diamonds which are incredibly hard to distinguish from the real mined ones, there were a few articles about it in New scientist.

some journo visited Debeers and asked them to look at a diamond and value it (a yellow diamond, which are incredibly rare) and ironically easier to make than white diamonds, they offered him some silly money for it and he proceeded to pull out a small sack full of them, then told them he'd made them and he could get as many as he wanted :D
 
It's not that Microsoft are a "monopoly" it's that nobody has a product comparable to Windows worth selling. BeOS was the closest yet but their faulty business plan brought a quick end to its life.

I really don't think it's fair to label Microsoft a "monopoly". It's their market. They created the market for themselves. So until somebody else with big enough boots comes along to claim a share of that market, it is still unanimously owned by Microsoft.

Sure Microsoft has done some pretty bad things in its time, but I honestly can't think of one in the past 6-7 years... and it's a normal phase in any company's life.

Google right now is what Microsoft were like when they first started out. They are untouchable. The creaks in Google have already begun to show though and really they have set a course for a downward spiral. Just saying their company motto is "not to be evil" is no longer enough. They actually need to uphold that promise instead of secretly doing evil things that are slowly but surely leaking out to the press and will eventually reach the public eye.

As somebody said, Microsoft is an easy target. Think of it like a school playground. All the bullies are picking on one, popular, kid and kicking him while he's down. The EU (the biggest bully of them all) started the fight, now all the vultures are scrambling to get a kick in. Real Networks did it and they got awarded a prize to the tune of $500m. Quite a successful business plan. It has certainly ensured all their staff a holiday for the next 5 years at least.
 
Microsoft do not have an monopoly.

If they had they would be producing the only OS for the PC, the only Word Processor for the PC and so on.

They have competition, linux, Unix et al.

It is the fact from an ease of use and compatability point of view that market driven by the consumer favours their products.

It is like saying Ford have a monopoly on car sales because they sell more than anyone else in the world... they obviously don't have a monopoly it is just what the market is buying the most of.
 
Sure Microsoft has done some pretty bad things in its time, but I honestly can't think of one in the past 6-7 years... and it's a normal phase in any company's life.
Click to expand...

Agreed. They've done some terrible things in the past (breaking competitors' products by modifying or hiding Windows APIs) and but hardly anything monopoly-related recently. Most of their "crimes" these days come from stealing or infringing on intelectual property (Sendo, NTP, etc.).

If Apple was in the same position then they would be in even more trouble. Microsoft originally got in trouble for bundling Windows Media Player with Windows. Apple bundles iTunes/Quicktime and all other kinds of software with its OS.

Having said that, I think it would be benefical to the consumer is Microsoft was more open in licensing its technology. We've already seen it with MS Exchange being licensed to Palm and Nokia, but it would be nice if they went further. More competition is a good thing, even if sometimes it has to be created artificially.
 
I think most of you are missing the main problem with what Microsoft are doing, which is clearly abusing their OS monopoly. It has nothing to do with Microsoft having a 95% (or whatever) share of the market . . . they are perfectly entitled to sell more than their competitors. The problem is that they are unfairly exploiting the fact that they own the OS when they make their other products.

1. Unlike Microsoft, other companies do not know how the OS works internally. Now say some company wants to develop a product which integrates well with the OS. Since they dont know how the OS works they cant do this as well as Microsoft can. Hence by not releasing sufficient details about how their OS works they give themselves a massive advantage over competitors when developing other applications.

Microsoft should reveal more of its OS (at least how it works, what clever things you can do with it to achieve better integration etc). Such information would never let another company go and build their own version of Windows. . but would allow companies to develop better products to run on it.

One extreme example is databases. No-one will EVER be able to make a db system as good as Microsofts which runs on windows.

2. Bundled software (Windows Media Player). By bundling software with their OS they are essentially making it almost impossible for anyone to compete. What they should do is make media player available as a free download. That way the user makes a fair choice about which product to use.
 
whilst I understand your point. Why should microsoft from their perspective make it easier to develop software for their operating system. They did after all create the operating environment, why shouldn't it be their right to use that to their advantage.

I just failed to understand the media player issue. From my understanding they said it was anti-competitive to bundle it with windows, but surely by that ruling microsoft shouldn't bundle anything with their operating system, as it would be anti-comptetitive.

I heed that microsoft may well be abusing their position by hiding the source code and bundling software ,but is this really in the interests of the average consumer to pursue them for it? Most people want a computer that does most tasks they want, without having to download hundreds of addons.

How would these other companies make money anyway? People aren't going to buy a media player if microsoft give it away for free, ditto for other things microsoft would offer for free.
 
Lagz said:
I think most of you are missing the main problem with what Microsoft are doing, which is clearly abusing their OS monopoly. It has nothing to do with Microsoft having a 95% (or whatever) share of the market . . . they are perfectly entitled to sell more than their competitors. The problem is that they are unfairly exploiting the fact that they own the OS when they make their other products.

1. Unlike Microsoft, other companies do not know how the OS works internally. Now say some company wants to develop a product which integrates well with the OS. Since they dont know how the OS works they cant do this as well as Microsoft can. Hence by not releasing sufficient details about how their OS works they give themselves a massive advantage over competitors when developing other applications.

Microsoft should reveal more of its OS (at least how it works, what clever things you can do with it to achieve better integration etc). Such information would never let another company go and build their own version of Windows. . but would allow companies to develop better products to run on it.

One extreme example is databases. No-one will EVER be able to make a db system as good as Microsofts which runs on windows.

2. Bundled software (Windows Media Player). By bundling software with their OS they are essentially making it almost impossible for anyone to compete. What they should do is make media player available as a free download. That way the user makes a fair choice about which product to use.
Click to expand...
Sorry but that is one of the most biased and uninformative posts.

1. So Windows has been around for ooo how long and you dont think they know how their own products work? Come on who are you kidding? You have jumped on the media bandwagon against them and are reflecting these views here. As for not releasing details - Coca Cola don't specifically tell you what their secret is, why should Microsoft? And the Coca Cola brand is also i believe one of the most or if not the most famous brand on the planet. Thats a good product with good marketing. Regarding databases, SQL ring any bells?

2. Bundled software. Right. Whats wrong with that again, they are selling multiple products into one package, whats the problem? If nobody could compete surely you are insulting the intelligence of any person who uses a non Microsoft product on a Microsoft operating system including myself. I choose what products I wish to use, Microsoft do not pick for me. Media Player is free! So is WinAmp so are many other similar products, so whats not fair?

What I do understand is their market position and where you are coming from, I think that there needs to be a greater understanding of what the actual problem is, not fleecing MS for money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom