Microsoft in new EU action

[Dolph]

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.

Possibly true, but that doesn't explain why there is a fair amount of software from 3rd parties that is better than the alternatives....

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.

I couldn't really argue with that. There is a good argument for that.

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.

Here I entirely disagree with you. There is absolutely no benefit to the consumer to force them to download an additional product when it could be supplied free of charge.

I wouldn't have a problem with making them allow an "optional" install of the WMP, but it is worth noting that WMP is used as the integration engine for many pieces of sortware (MS and non-MS) to allow audio playback, so you can't get rid of it entirely.

The user already has full choice of which media player to use. WMP does not and has never blocked other media players from working (unlike quicktime or realplayer), nor does it extension steal or pester you. There is no compulsion to use WMP, and no restriction of using alternatives.

What benefit would forcing customers to have to install WMP be for the average user? Remember that the people on here are not the average user....

 

[titchard]

The one thing that I always thought was odd, was that Microsoft got sued for having media player etc in it monopolising the market, and there are Linux distros out there with like 9 GB ISOs, containing application repositries of thousands of applications.

Isn't that just doing what Microsoft are doing, but to an even higher level?

Rich

 

[afraser2k]

Well it could be said most of the Linux applications also provide the source code and the problem Real faces with RealPlayer was that it faced an uphill struggle to develop a product that was as fast as WMP due to Microsoft using internal code. We all know how many here complain about RealPlayer performance (though I think it's a decent media player) and open code would improve that, well, in theory.

Personally I'm on the fence on this. I know Microsoft haven't been the most ethical company but their products, despite their flaws (security or otherwise), is still more usable than the competition's.

 

[Phantom]

Microsoft are also trying to get their foot in the door of open standards... pushing their Word document format to become the new .pdf etc.

 

[Lagz]

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.

This is quite possibly the most ridculous post I've ever seen? You think Microsoft dont know how their own OS works? . . . .lol! Microsoft have written many versions of their OS. They have learnt from mistakes of the past and now they no doubt maintain very good documentation on all components of their OS. Obviously no MS employee knows how the entire OS works, but if I want to look up how a specific component (say the windowing system) works I will always be able to find out through documentation or through asking the MS employees who developed it.

Its clearly a different situation than Coca-Cola. No-one needs to know the Coca-Cola recipe to produce other products which Coca-Cola also produce.

Regarding databases, SQL ring any bells?

Ever heard of MICROSOFT sql server?

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?

Well its a controversial point which can be argued from both sides. The fact is whilst everyone on this forum will know alternatives exist, many less IT savvy people do not know you can download free alternatives to things like media player. Whos fault this is is arguable.

 

[NathanE]

Microsoft are also trying to get their foot in the door of open standards... pushing their Word document format to become the new .pdf etc.

They aren't "attacking" PDF though. In fact the next version of Office supports PDF writing as a key feature.

PDF's big problem is Acrobat Reader. It's buggy, uninitutive and crashes a lot. It is also very annoying if you send a PDF document to somebody and they ask how to open it... I for one cannot wait for Microsoft to release their competitor to PDF. PDF has owned that market for far too long.

Ever heard of MICROSOFT sql server?

Yes and it's in no way a monopoly. There's plenty of other mainframe-class database servers out there. DB2, Oracle... These databases perform just as well on Windows as SQL Server. So your remark that Microsoft prevents third parties from beating its SQL Server is totally false.

Microsoft produces the best documentation out of any operating system. Where other operating systems tell you to "study the source code" to gain an understanding of how something works, Microsoft actually writes an article about it using intricate detail. Very very few parts of Windows are undocumented. The parts that are are left undocumented for a reason. Usually this is because the interface could change in the next revision of the OS, or because it hasn't been fully tested, or because it is only for use for the operating system itself.

 

[Tunney]

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.

Because competition is good?

Just look at the web browser. Initially we had offerings like Netscape and Mosiac that were free and used by a great deal of people. Suddenly Microsoft enters and bundles its web browser free with the OS. Because it's the default option, most people switch and slowly the competition is killed off. Microsoft then has a virtual monopoly on the web browser market and all innovation and development stops. Hardly any new features of worth a developed in years and even updating the web browser in line with web standards stagnates. It's taken a new set of challengers (Firefox, Opera) to give Microsoft a kick up the arse, but it's taken many years inbetween the competition being killed off and new competition emerging.

As for not releasing details - Coca Cola don't specifically tell you what their secret is, why should Microsoft?

No-one is asking for the inner workings of the OS. It's the upper layers and the interfaces that other companies want to access. The likes of IBM want to interact better with Windows, not create their own version, and have the same kind of access as Microsoft's other divisions.

By hiding the best features from 3rd party developers, the end user will lose out in the long run. You may be happy with the Microsoft option, but choice is good and competition can only make the end user experience better in the long run.

Microsoft are being targetted because they're the biggest, but they're not the only offender.

 

[Dolph]

Because competition is good?

Just look at the web browser. Initially we had offerings like Netscape and Mosiac that were free and used by a great deal of people. Suddenly Microsoft enters and bundles its web browser free with the OS. Because it's the default option, most people switch and slowly the competition is killed off. Microsoft then has a virtual monopoly on the web browser market and all innovation and development stops. Hardly any new features of worth a developed in years and even updating the web browser in line with web standards stagnates. It's taken a new set of challengers (Firefox, Opera) to give Microsoft a kick up the arse, but it's taken many years inbetween the competition being killed off and new competition emerging.

Netscape died off because it rapidly became rubbish compared to the competition. It was nothing to do with the bundling of the browser with the OS.

Netscape was the better program right up until IE4, and it showed in it's market share. Then IE became the better product, netscape was bought by someone (AOL I believe) who crippled it even more and it fell by the wayside.

Opera (my browser of choice) and firefox have takeup because they aren't rubbish, because they are better than IE6 as it stands. I do take your point about lack of competition causing stagnation, but it was not MS' fault that netscape failed. it was netscapes.

 

[Vonhelmet]

MS have actively made it difficult for PC makers to sell PCs with any OS besides Windows. MS have been known to up the price of Windows licenses for companies that want to sell PCs with other OSes. That's scummy.

Their file formats are obfuscated and kept secret. This means they have a monopoly on documents as people struggle to read Office docs without Office. That's anti-competitive.

Their browser fails to render pages properly and is way behind the times. They also flip-flop on what people want i.e. about a year ago they claimed no one was interested in tabs, now they are all for them. Hmm. That's stupid.

Their software is insecure and buggy and they drag their heels over patches. That's rubbish.

 

[alexakasloth]

Here I entirely disagree with you. There is absolutely no benefit to the consumer to force them to download an additional product when it could be supplied free of charge.

I wouldn't have a problem with making them allow an "optional" install of the WMP, but it is worth noting that WMP is used as the integration engine for many pieces of sortware (MS and non-MS) to allow audio playback, so you can't get rid of it entirely.

The user already has full choice of which media player to use. WMP does not and has never blocked other media players from working (unlike quicktime or realplayer), nor does it extension steal or pester you. There is no compulsion to use WMP, and no restriction of using alternatives.

What benefit would forcing customers to have to install WMP be for the average user? Remember that the people on here are not the average user....

I've got to agree with your point, plus what if they don't have the internet?