| This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 40 ( 1  ) || |
|IE Won't Be Bundled With Windows 7 In Europe|
| 11:19 am on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
IE Won't Be Bundled With Windows 7 In Europe [news.bbc.co.uk]
|European buyers of Windows 7 will have to download and install a web browser for themselves. |
Bowing to European competition rules, Microsoft Windows 7 will ship without Internet Explorer.
The company said it would make it easy for PC makers and users to get at and install the web browsing program.
In response Brussels expressed scepticism over the move and whether it went far enough to ally accusations of it abusing its market position.
[edited by: engine at 11:48 am (utc) on June 12, 2009]
| 3:29 pm on Jun 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
It seems the EU court did not make a firm request of MS. All they seemed to have provided was suggestions. MS had their own idea.
And you're wrong. Microsoft does get to choose. They could disobey the court if they choose to. The might pay a heavy price, but civil disobedience is always an option.
| 6:33 pm on Jun 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Obviously, Microsoft have the option of breaking the law, it's an option they are very familiar with, but if they go down that road, it would be a mistake.
|And you're wrong. Microsoft does get to choose. They could disobey the court if they choose to. |
What does MS stand to gain financially from this argument?
What does MS stand to loose financially from this argument?
Clearly, the Microsoft board is suffering from collective insanity. The best case scenario of arguing with the EU Commission is that they don't loose anything. The worst case scenario could cost tens of billions. Stupidity, insanity, childish petulance, it could be any of these, but this fight does not represent sound business practice.
If Microsoft, said, "sure, we'll bundle a couple of alternative web browsers" they would look like the good guys, and it wouldn't cost them a penny, in legal fees, lost revenue or fines. This spat is as much about stupid childish petulance (by Microsoft) as anti-trust issues.
| 7:47 pm on Jun 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
IMO all OS makers, not just Microsoft, should be forced to provide a bare-bones version: enough to run processes, install programs, edit text files, connect to the internet and basic drivers. They can also provide a more feature-full version, if they want, and/or third parties such as computer stores can provide their own versions with value-added software. That would leave the choice to the consumer, a tech-savvy person (or a big company) can buy the bare-bones version for a lower price and install their own choice of programs, other users can buy the version that has software that suits their needs best.
Anyways, i think EU didn't go far enough, they should outlaw IE for misleading advertising. Its support of CSS is just awful. :D
| 2:09 pm on Jun 15, 2009 (gmt 0)|
If you don't like MS, their products, ethics, whatever ... don't buy their stuff!
And using the law to force any company to provide a specific product is absurd. MS pretty much started in a college dorm room. Apple started in a garage. This should scare every small start-up company. Once you get too big, politicians will rub their sticky little hands, ready to reach out and grab a piece of your pie.
Like I said, if you don't agree with their tactics, buy a Mac, get a Linux machine, or write your own OS. Sounds silly? All this stuff sounded silly 30 years ago, yet here we are.
| 4:34 pm on Jun 15, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|If you don't like MS, their products, ethics, whatever ... don't buy their stuff! |
I develop websites for clients. Once, a client complained that i'd added all kinds of extra links to his website. It turned out that he'd downloaded an IE virus that was adding those links automatically to the websites he visited. Another client woke me up at 6 in the morning yelling at me that he was receiving some spam email once a minute and i must stop it now! It turned out he'd downloaded a virus into his Outlook program. I've got other clients who use Macs, never had such problems.
I'm implementing this one website now. It works great in Firefox, Opera, Safari, then looks like crap in IE... Even if i refuse to buy MS products, because so many others do, my work is affected by them. So telling me to "just don't buy their stuff" doesn't work.
|And using the law to force any company to provide a specific product is absurd. |
It's called "consumer protection". Even in the States where money is king and "government intervention" is frowned upon, there are many such rules, e.g. seatbelts in cars. In the EU, which is the context of this post, and many other countries outside EU, there are many more such laws. Not at all abusrd.
| 9:03 pm on Jun 15, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Here's the thing... Microsoft don't get to choose how to comply with anti-trust laws, they have to obey instructions, just like every other company. In other words, if the EU commission orders MS to bundle other browsers, that's what they'll have to do. MS can't unilaterally choose their own remedy. This simple fact seems to have been missed. |
They don't get to choose? Hrmm.
How about they just stop selling their OS in the UK? And they stop providing updates to their OS in the UK? No offense to the EU, but Microsoft has them by the balls if push really came to shove.
That's the power of a monopoly.
| 11:09 pm on Jun 15, 2009 (gmt 0)|
and UK users start a class action against MS for selling defective code.
|And they stop providing updates to their OS in the UK |
You fail to understand the Microsoft ethos - MONEY. Why do you think so many people use the abbreviation M$? Granted, Microsoft also like to throw their weight around, flex their muscles, etc. but, the bottom line is that fighting the EU is never going to be profitable and money overrides everything else.
If you really think Microsoft has the power, consider this. As an anti-trust action, the EU Commission could require all computers capable of running Linux to be shipped with it (in addition to the optional Windows operating system). If users decided to save themselves about €50 by not buying Windows, that would cost Microsoft billions. Also, similar actions could be taken with respect to office software.
[edited by: bill at 6:47 am (utc) on June 16, 2009]
[edit reason] see sticky [/edit]
| 1:59 am on Jun 16, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Why do you think so many people use the abbreviation M$? |
If Linux is a viable option for the EU, why don't they just require it now? Why go round for round with Microsoft every few years? Oh right, there's no money for the EU to make in requiring Linux to be installed. But there sure is $$$ to be made in lawsuits.
The EU is no better than Microsoft in their practices - it's just a matter of whether or not your blinded by prejudice to see it clearly.
| 2:27 am on Jun 16, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Take a look in the mirror.
Not to put too fine a point on it, I've taken on all-comers with logical and factual arguments and, whilst there have been some sensible comments and suggestions from people with a differing view, the puerile nature of many who believe "Europe can't be allowed to tell American businesses what to do" is just staggering. In the US, Americans make the rules but in the EU, Europeans make make the rules - get over it.
Oh, and if you think this is just about bad Europeans stealing from hard-working Americans, explain to me why British Airways was fined by US authorities for anti-trust violations. We Brits took it on the chin, we didn't gripe and moan or criticise the US authorities or behave spoilt children.
[edited by: bill at 2:35 am (utc) on June 17, 2009]
[edit reason] tidy up [/edit]
| 2:48 am on Jun 16, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Ahh, I didn't realize you were in the UK. Thanks for clarifying, it all makes sense now!
| This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 40 ( 1  ) |