| 11:14 am on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
If MS really want to supply Windows without a browser, then the EU Commission should let them. HOWEVER, it should mandate that an applications disk is supplied with Windows with alternate browsers, office software, media players, etc.
Given that as an alternative, I think MS will quickly see the error of their ways.
| 11:42 am on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Kaled... I want you to send all your web traffic to my site.
Edit... went too far, took some back. Can tell we're on different sides of the pond and should let it go at that. But you did ask too much (apps, office, etc) when only the browser is at question. And I think no browser is better than the nightmare of many browsers.
| 1:49 pm on Jun 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
If Microsoft supplied only only OS software (no applications) they would happily bundle a disk of applications. It is only because they also supply application software that an issue arises - i.e. MS exploits its position as an OS supplier to disadvantage other software companies. You may think that's ok, you are certainly entitled to hold that opinion, but it's been ruled illegal both in US courts and the EU. The difference is that the EU is intent on enforcement of the law but the US bottled out.
What part of that don't you understand?
| 6:32 am on Jun 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|You may think that's ok, you are certainly entitled to hold that opinion, but it's been ruled illegal both in US courts and the EU. |
Over the years courts have made rulings that in hindsight turned out to be wrong or at least misguided.
The easy examples are some of the earlier rulings on slavery and civil rights but maybe more relevent are some of the patent rulings.
Many here have stated that some of the patent rulings were wrong because the courts do not have the technical knowledge to make a proper ruling.
The basis of the US decision against MS was that Netscape was destroyed by Microsoft's OS monopoly.
But those of us around then know that Netscape destroyed themselves with a horrible version 6 just when MS put out a decent browser.
The success of Firefox and now Chrome show that Microsoft's OS monopoly does not help them when faced with credible competition.
|What part of that don't you understand? |
Personal attacks tend to weaken a posters argument.
| 12:01 pm on Jun 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
When a court makes a ruling, it must be obeyed. Normally, an appeal can be lodged, but unless the court says otherwise, until that appeal is won, the ruling must be obeyed. If a company finds a law to be financially inconvenient, it is still required to obey the law. Microsoft have the right of appeal, but they do not have the right to disobey the law.
Microsoft expects it's copyright to be respected even by people who believe copyright law is wrong. Equally, Microsoft must respect the law even if it believes the law is wrong.
Calling someone an idiotic tw*t is a personal attack. Asking the question "what part of that don't you understand?" is not a personal attack it's an attempt to force someone to think logically instead of emotionally. So without wishing to offend you, can you find a flaw in fact or logic with respect to the first two paragraphs?
Of course it helps them. Are you saying the market share of Internet Explorer is justified by merit?
|The success of Firefox and now Chrome show that Microsoft's OS monopoly does not help them when faced with credible competition. |
| 3:55 pm on Jun 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I would think with the success of Firefox and Chrome that the folks in Redmond would realize they have a problem. It really is uncharacteristic of people to go out of their way to get another piece of software like that.
I don't believe they have ever charged for IE, it has always come bundled, hasn't it? I personally always went out of my way to use other browsers when available. I think the only reason I dropped Netscape was because I got safari instead, and I used DejaNews rather than Netscape for news browsing.
As the population of folks in charge of IT budgets gets older, and a bit wiser to the ways of OSs, they might look at how much they have to pay to constantly monitor and patch Microsoft stuff. Linux is free, and they have some really good aps. Would be fun if some major bank decided "Screw this, we haven't got the time or personnel to continually deal with Microsoft's QC issues."
It really is odd that folks think there is a monopoly when there is better stuff out for free, and people make a huge effort to pay extra for lower quality.
| 6:03 am on Jun 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
MS will be shipping Win7E and Win7N to EU. That's what will happen. OEMs can supply the applications bundle, thereby keeping the OS free of applications in Europe. Addresses the EUC competition complaint completely. Everyone competes equally in that regard.
Seems like the best solution.
| 10:28 am on Jun 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|OEMs can supply the applications bundle |
I think there is quite a good argument in favour of this approach, however, it must be very clearly mandated in law exactly what is required, otherwise Microsoft will find ways to subvert it.
| 12:42 pm on Jun 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Perhaps this could work...
Set up and independent trust, funded by a $0.5 levy on all copies of Windows sold in Europe. The trust could determine what software has to be bundled and supply it on a separate disk that is distributed with all copies of Windows (OEM and retail). Microsoft would be cut out of the loop entirely since they retail neither computers nor software directly.