Microsoft must pay $1.4bn to EU

[Psyk]

I think they should be made to open up their OS a bit to allow other developers to use the system functions they are using in their own software. That's fair in my opinion, and ultimately a good thing for the consumer.

But I think it's stupid to say MS shouldn't be bundling things with their OS. The point of all this legal action is for the consumer. In general, more competition is good for the consumer as they have more choice and aren't forced into things. While forcing MS to stop bundling WMP with Windows possibly will help other companies compete, it's bad for the consumer because now things are less convenient.

If MS want to bundle their products together, that's up to them. Although I do think it should be easier to choose not to install them.

Why only make a fuss about media players and browsers? If I wrote software to visually navigate through directories and browse files, I would have a hard time selling it because you can already do that in Windows. Should MS be stopped from including a file manager with their OS? After all, it's not a necessary part of an OS, it could be done through the command line.

 

[dsb]

I think they should be made to open up their OS a bit to allow other developers to use the system functions they are using in their own software. That's fair in my opinion, and ultimately a good thing for the consumer.

But I think it's stupid to say MS shouldn't be bundling things with their OS. The point of all this legal action is for the consumer. In general, more competition is good for the consumer as they have more choice and aren't forced into things. While forcing MS to stop bundling WMP with Windows possibly will help other companies compete, it's bad for the consumer because now things are less convenient.

In what way is it fair to MS, they have spent the money building the best system they can, they have driven away the competition, would you still think it was fair if you made an amazing product only to be told that you have to tell others the secret behind it so others can become rich just like you.

It is better for the consumer but not better for the businesses.

 

[afraser2k]

The problem with the WMP removal was due to a complaint from Real that their player suffered from lack of access to internal Windows API that WMP had access to. You can see their point, after all RealPlayer became known to be a bloated mess as they tried to offer something more to consumers when they couldn't beat WMP in basic media playback.

The way that the EU went about that one was wrong though, we should be given the option to completely remove WMP if we wanted to so that we'd only need one player if we wanted to but allow Microsoft to include WMP as default.

Same issue again with IE. Thanks to Firefox, Microsoft were forced into improving the browser in IE7 due to the new features of Firefox that users were demanding when IE6 was beginning to become stale (and a security nightmare) with lack of Microsoft updates.

 

[Goberpiles316]

I think its a load of rubbish, Microsoft have made and developed the OS they should be able to do what they want to do with it, if you dont like it dont use it and gear your program for another operating system.

Microsoft have the market share because they offer the best dam operating system, if people dont like it go make another.

 

[Aod]

What exactly do they do with these fines once they get it paid? Buy cuban cigars, bigger cars and slap each other on the back for once again "pwning" the american atm machine known as Microsoft?

the EU uses it to fund the enormous money-black-hole that is the C.A.P

 

[Munky1080]

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>

Here Here!

 

[Killerkebab]

I thought the problem wasn't WMPs existence, wasn't even it's bundling with Windows, but that WMP had access to (and forgive me for not knowing the technical side of this) files or parts of the OS that 3rd party developers don't. This means that even if they could provide you with a top notch media player to blow WMP straight out of the water, they can't - or if they can it is very difficult - because WMP has a head start, as such.

 

[Hyper]

I think Microsoft get picked on too much, they are seen as an easy target for easy cash with all the money they have.

 

[Stiff_Cookie]

I dont know much about API's or deep OS workings but IMO, Microsoft should be required to provide information to companies so that they have the opportunity to develope competitive software. Competition is good and it will force companies to always strive to improve their product to beat out the competition.

I wouldnt say that Microsoft have a monopoly because their are other products out there and they are being used. However, for your average computer user, which is probably 90% of them out there, Windows is what they understand and can work with.

I also think the fine was too huge and think it is that way for the sole reason that Microsoft is so rich and not because its reasonable.

 

[Hellsmk2]

Nothing to do with that why don't you read up on the reasons?

The bundled no OS programmes with their OS thus giving other companies no chance to properly market their software.

Example Windows Media Player, if you have it you are not going to look for a third party one, especially one that costs money.

Giving away software = ok

bundling it with an OS = not ok

What utter rubbish! I'd be pretty peeved off if I bought a PC and then realised I had no web browser to go online or it lacked the ability to play music out of the box.

Why should a company be penalised for adding basic functionality to a software program it designed in the first place?

Also, most people wouldn't pay for a third party media player or browser anyhow. Why would they when the best alternatives out there for free?

 

[Sankari]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7266629.stm



That a lot of cash.

 

[Sankari]

Yeah how is it apple go untouched? Oh wait not as deep pockets so they can just slip by along with DJ spinmaster Jobs.

Maybe the eu get ipods in their yearly kickba..err sorry christmas stocking from apple.

Firstly, Apple doesn't go untouched. Secondly, it's hard to accuse a company of abusing its monopoly status when it only has 7.3% of the market share.

Thirdly, the problem with Microsoft is not just its high market share, but the fact that its exclusive position allows it to manipulate the market in such a way as to prevent the balance that would otherwise be created by competition.

 

[Sankari]

And letting every tom, dick and harry have access to the inner workings of the OS is fundamentally a bad idea

Yes, we've all seen how this fatal decision killed off Linux.

Not.

 

[NathanE]

It's funny the EU is effectively making out that a bunch of obviously intelligent guys behind the Firefox product can code a full on web browser but then can't go the last mile of reading the MSDN documentation on how to integrate it with the Explorer Shell.

Explorer Shell integration is no black art or deep secret at Microsoft. It is all FULLY documented. IE makes no direct calls into the kernel. Doing so is actually impossible from a user-mode application. So next time you hear someone spouting crap like "oh but IE has secret calls into the kernel" you know they are talking out of their posterior.

The reason IE loads so fast is because it is a native Windows application. It doesn't use some crappy window rendering manager that is designed for cross-platform compatibility rather than performance. It is far less bloated than Opera or Firefox too. It doesn't for instance have the burden of loading up 1001 plug-ins that the user has installed nor does it need to load up some cheapo AIM/YAHOO/MSN/IRC client that all these browsers seem to have these days. Again, there isn't any black magic going on behind the scenes here. IE loads fast because it is fast and relatively light weight. I suppose it helps very very slightly that one of the core DLL's "mshtml.dll" gets loaded into memory at bootup because of course an OS that can't render HTML is an uncompetitive and probably crap OS. It takes about 5 seconds on Google or MSDN for Microsoft's competitors to figure out how to add a Registry entry that will get their DLL's loaded at boot up as well...

 

[Dolph]

I thought the problem wasn't WMPs existence, wasn't even it's bundling with Windows, but that WMP had access to (and forgive me for not knowing the technical side of this) files or parts of the OS that 3rd party developers don't. This means that even if they could provide you with a top notch media player to blow WMP straight out of the water, they can't - or if they can it is very difficult - because WMP has a head start, as such.

The problem here is that the EU (and many people contributing to the debate) fail to realise that there are, effectively, two different parts to WMP. At a basic level, there's the functionality to play files of any supported type embedded into the OS, just like the ability to browse zip files etc. Any application can call and use these routines, and these are the routines called by the WMP frontend, which if you don't like, you can delete without issue.

The fact that 3rd party providers chose to write alternate music file interpretation methods (remember the WMP engine is fully file format compatible through plugins) rather than use the built in ones is not MS's fault, nor should they be punished for it if the 3rd party solutions don't work as well.

WMP (the application) did not have access to anything that was inaccessible to others, the confusion came because the file interpretation system was also called WMP.

 

[Dolph]

Yes, we've all seen how this fatal decision killed off Linux.

Not.

When Linux has the same market share as windows, we can discuss the risk of exploits from an open code base.

Until then, security by obscurity tends to serve quite well.

(Note this is not to say that Linux is insecure or badly coded, just that it is not subject to the same desire to find exploits that windows is)

 

[Dolph]

It's funny the EU is effectively making out that a bunch of obviously intelligent guys behind the Firefox product can code a full on web browser but then can't go the last mile of reading the MSDN documentation on how to integrate it with the Explorer Shell.

Explorer Shell integration is no black art or deep secret at Microsoft. It is all FULLY documented. IE makes no direct calls into the kernel. Doing so is actually impossible from a user-mode application. So next time you hear someone spouting crap like "oh but IE has secret calls into the kernel" you know they are talking out of their posterior.

The reason IE loads so fast is because it is a native Windows application. It doesn't use some crappy window rendering manager that is designed for cross-platform compatibility rather than performance. It is far less bloated than Opera or Firefox too. It doesn't for instance have the burden of loading up 1001 plug-ins that the user has installed nor does it need to load up some cheapo AIM/YAHOO/MSN/IRC client that all these browsers seem to have these days. Again, there isn't any black magic going on behind the scenes here. IE loads fast because it is fast and relatively light weight. I suppose it helps very very slightly that one of the core DLL's "mshtml.dll" gets loaded into memory at bootup because of course an OS that can't render HTML is an uncompetitive and probably crap OS. It takes about 5 seconds on Google or MSDN for Microsoft's competitors to figure out how to add a Registry entry that will get their DLL's loaded at boot up as well...

Indeed. It's a shame that some people just can't seem to grasp the idea that MS might not be evil puppy killing capitalists with bowler hats, wax moustaches burning children on a fire to heat their offices.

It seems MS aren't just expected to make the information available, it's also their fault if their competitors ignore it.

 

[Tefal]

EU Competition Laws are designed to make things fairer for consumers.

Forcing them to have to learn about and then purchase a seperate peice of software to play sound files on a computer is not fairer.

True.

 

[Dolph]

Firstly, Apple doesn't go untouched. Secondly, it's hard to accuse a company of abusing its monopoly status when it only has 7.3% of the market share.

What about 85%? Monopolies aren't just about the desktop OS market.

Thirdly, the problem with Microsoft is not just its high market share, but the fact that its exclusive position allows it to manipulate the market in such a way as to prevent the balance that would otherwise be created by competition.

Except they haven't been, at least not in the last 8 years or more.

Just because many third party developers ignore much of the information available, and people then think this is MS' fault, it doesn't make it so, especially when those people making the assumptions don't actually understand how windows works under the hood anyway.

 

[jas72]

i wonder why the EU dont consider that apple's ipod + itunes combo an "illegal anti-competitive monopoly".

also it would be just plain stupid removing IE from windows... you would have to download IE or opera or firefox on another pc then transfer it on a disk... and if you dont already have a computer youd need to get someone with one to download it for you

wrong when you load up windows MS would give you a choice of software to install to allow functionality. Or it would be printed on the CD that you will need internet software to get online. Shops could give you a firefox CD with your OS purchase. It's not really that difficult is it?