PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft hit by record EU fine


iGav
Mar 24, 2004, 06:07 AM
A fine of €497million well it's better than nothing I suppose... but really, it's about time authorities really came down hard on them and their second rate, retro-innovative, sad excuse for software products. :rolleyes:

Now it'll go on to an appeal, won't be sorted for X amount of years and MS will continue taking the pi$$!! :rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3563697.stm

JFreak
Mar 24, 2004, 06:34 AM
A fine of €497million well it's better than nothing I suppose...

it's not about the money. did you read this:

"Mr Monti has ordered Microsoft to reveal details of its Windows software codes within 120 days, to make it easier for rivals to design compatible products."

"Microsoft must offer a stripped-down version of its Windows operating system minus the firm's MediaPlayer audiovisual software within 90 days."

groovebuster
Mar 24, 2004, 06:42 AM
But it could take up to a year for Microsoft's appeal to be filed and it is not clear if the EU court will order the company to change its operating systems during the appeal process, which could last up to five years.

These complaints against Microsoft are based on five-year-old technology, which is a lifetime in the technology world.

Microsoft's next version of Windows is expected to include a Web search engine that would challenge Google and Yahoo.

The EU is already looking into charges from Microsoft competitors that its latest desktop operating system, Windows XP, is designed to help extend Microsoft's dominance into new markets such as instant messaging and mobile phones.

For its part, Microsoft has accused the EU of going too far in seeking a record fine for alleged antitrust abuses, saying it is being penalized for behavior permitted in the United States and did not realize it was acting illegally in Europe.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/03/24/microsoft.eu/index.html

:rolleyes:

groovebuster

Savage Henry
Mar 24, 2004, 06:45 AM
I love the bit : "Microsoft claims that it should not be fined at all because it did not know its behaviour would breach EU law. "

The day Ignorance of any law is considered suitable defence is the day the foundation of Justice is destroyed.


Half a billion bucks does sound juicy enough to make me smile.

Their stocks have already lost $1 in the past week, so I'm curious to see how the market reacts. (Not that the news wasn't expected)

mj_1903
Mar 24, 2004, 06:55 AM
It's not enough to stop them. If only the United States government had the balls to stand up to them, then we would see action happening. This EU settlement is just a slap on the wrist and Microsoft will appeal it and nothing notable will occur.

iGav
Mar 24, 2004, 07:03 AM
it's not about the money. did you read this:

"Mr Monti has ordered Microsoft to reveal details of its Windows software codes within 120 days, to make it easier for rivals to design compatible products."

"Microsoft must offer a stripped-down version of its Windows operating system minus the firm's MediaPlayer audiovisual software within 90 days."

yep I read about it, but the fine is a big part of it... they should have been hit much, much harder in that respect, if they thought they were going to receive multi-billion $ fines everytime they took the pi$$, they'd soon realise.

What the EU should demand, is that the removal MediaPlayer happens now... and only allow Microsoft to appeal the fine amount, otherwise Microsoft will not be affected in anyway at all, because the process of appeal will drag on for years and years.

But like the pat on the back Microsoft received from the U.S. Courts a couple of years ago, this doesn't go anyway near far enough, MS only will have to offer the alternative OS to PC makers, in which case, do we really believe that companies like Dell etc are going to provide a stripped down OS over the fully functioning one?? I think not...

It's about time authorities realised that Microsoft is NEVER going to change it's unethical approach, and that something really needs to be done... NOW, before we're all f**kin' doomed to it's unsecure, second rate, retro-innovative products.

flyfish29
Mar 24, 2004, 11:04 AM
Half a billion bucks does sound juicy enough to make me smile.

Their stocks have already lost $1 in the past week, so I'm curious to see how the market reacts. (Not that the news wasn't expected)

Unfortunately this is just a slap on the wrist. They have over 50 billion in cash reserves! Not to mention all the assetts, etc, so really means nothing except a few people losing their jobs!

MacRumors
Mar 24, 2004, 11:29 AM
BBC reports (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3563697.stm) that Microsoft has been fined 497m euros ($613 million) for monopoly abuse in Europe.

As part of the punishment, Microsoft must reportedly "reveal secrets of its Windows software" and also offer a stripped-down version of Windows, without Windows Media Player.

Microsoft is expected to appeal.

PRØBE
Mar 24, 2004, 11:31 AM
BBC reports (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3563697.stm) that Microsoft has been fined 497m euros ($613 million) for monopoly abuse in Europe.

As part of the punishment, Microsoft must reportedly "reveal secrets of its Windows software" and also offer a stripped-down version of Windows, without Windows Media Player.

Microsoft is expected to appeal.




Excuse me while I ... HAHAHAHAhahahHAHAHAhahahaHAHAHA!

scarecrow
Mar 24, 2004, 11:31 AM
Give it to the "man"!

Wooohooo. :eek:

russed
Mar 24, 2004, 11:34 AM
hehehehehehehhehehehhe ... roll around floor ... hahahahahahahahaha

thats better now!

only problem is all the money will go to the EU ministers and be wasted on them.

g30ffr3y
Mar 24, 2004, 11:35 AM
thats awesome... it is too bad the US doesnt follow suit... microshaft can go letter after "E" themselves... hehehehe...

Grimace
Mar 24, 2004, 11:36 AM
{Nelson voice} [pointing] ----> Ha-ha!

Trimix
Mar 24, 2004, 11:40 AM
Dare I say that at least over here Microsoft will not get away with donating 500 million worth of PeeCees to some schools like in the USofA. It is going to be cold hard cash yippppiieeeeee ! I want to see a copy of that cheque being published PLEEEEEEEEASE.

iGav
Mar 24, 2004, 11:41 AM
only problem is all the money will go to the EU ministers and be wasted on them.

you just know it is though.... :rolleyes: like making our Banana's straighter, or some other Brussels Brainwave they keep trying to inflict on us... :eek: :rolleyes: :p

1macker1
Mar 24, 2004, 11:43 AM
No way will they reveal their code. That ruling will be overturned on the appeal. That's like asking KFC what's their 11 herbs and spices.

Wes
Mar 24, 2004, 11:45 AM
http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-5178486.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news

Cnet's take on the future of m$.

Naimfan
Mar 24, 2004, 11:50 AM
All--

The fine is not the point, although it is one of the largest antitrust fines ever levied. It is really about putting MS on notice that anti-competitive activity won't be tolerated.

The key point is that MS is being ordered to modify its software and that the order is highly unlikely to be stayed pending the resolution of the appeal. That is a major precedent, and will let the EU move a lot more quickly on other pending antitrust actions against MS.

I have yet to meet a programmer, including within MS, who believes Windows wouldn't work with IE or Media Player removed.

Best,

Bob

robotrenegade
Mar 24, 2004, 11:51 AM
HAHAHA

adamfilip
Mar 24, 2004, 11:54 AM
it wont make a lick of difference

Microsoft has 50 Billion in Cash laying around.. having too pay 600 mill
wont make any difference in there bottom line..

the fine should have been 30 Billion then they would change there ways

Swinny
Mar 24, 2004, 11:54 AM
Really really cant see the point in this at all...Its good to see them getting pulled up on messing things about, but its not gonna change anything really is it...just like nothing really changed after the anti-trust stuff in the US...has anyone stopped buying Windows because Microsoft are an unfair monopoly? that'll be a no then...and nothing will be different over here.

Picture the scene...a normal, computer literate, but not technically minded couple take a trip to the local PC World to buy the latest version for Windows (sometime in 2010 then obviously!)....

Wife: "Oooh look, if we buy this one its £1 cheaper cos apparently it doesnt have "media playback" software included...do we need that"
Hubby: "Yes, so its either download something when we've finally get the damned thing to to connect to the Internet, or just buy the full version and have all the stuff we need in one box"
Wife: "good point. full version it is then. Oooooh...how about one of those Macs?"
Hubby: "Don't be silly woman, they only have one mouse button"

five04
Mar 24, 2004, 11:56 AM
why do you all think microsoft is this big evil company? let's be honest people, they've made a lot of good innovations in technology. if we didn't have one main os in the market, not as many people would be using a computer. your average person doesn't want to have to learn another os. i use my ibook for portable things and my pc for my home so i'm not partial to either format. both have their advantages. i do think that if microsoft didn't try to include things such as a media player people would have no idea how to play files. my mom could sit down and if a sound file didn't open up she'd have no idea how to fix that. people want an os that will work. i think the same thing can be said for apple too. why does it come with ilife and quicktime? honestly, if you took ms out of the picture what os would take over? the average person buying a $499 computer system from dell can't afford a $2000 system from apple. is linux a viable option? not at all. it seems the governments are going after microsoft while the normal computer user doesn't care.

RHutch
Mar 24, 2004, 12:01 PM
Picture the scene...a normal, computer literate, but not technically minded couple take a trip to the local PC World to buy the latest version for Windows (sometime in 2010 then obviously!)....

Wife: "Oooh look, if we buy this one its £1 cheaper cos apparently it doesnt have "media playback" software included...do we need that"
Hubby: "Yes, so its either download something when we've finally get the damned thing to to connect to the Internet, or just buy the full version and have all the stuff we need in one box"
Wife: "good point. full version it is then. Oooooh...how about one of those Macs?"
Hubby: "Don't be silly woman, they only have one mouse button"

The versions of the OS will cost the same price, whether with the MS media player or not. And I think that part of the ruling is that they have to include another player, probably Real.

Foocha
Mar 24, 2004, 12:02 PM
Just goes to show that the EU isn't all bad - sometimes it get things exactly right.

Let's hope this is good news for Samba & Mac OS X's Windows support.

The point with Media Player is that it will be up to the OEMs discretion - if HP chooses to distribute their PCs with QuickTime and iTunes rather than Windows Media Player, they will be free to do so.

In order to capitalise on this, Apple & Real need to get busy striking OEM deals with PC manufacturers.

Google should be heaving a sigh of relief over this decision, and the US DOJ should take it as a reminder of what Antitrust is all about.

howard
Mar 24, 2004, 12:03 PM
hey guys, i'm a little confused on why they have to reveal there code and what the point of that is?

is it so other operating systems can copy what windows is doing?

is os x code available? not to knowledgeable on this so i was curious

joemama
Mar 24, 2004, 12:04 PM
why do you all think microsoft is this big evil company? let's be honest people, they've made a lot of good innovations in technology. if we didn't have one main os in the market, not as many people would be using a computer. your average person doesn't want to have to learn another os. i use my ibook for portable things and my pc for my home so i'm not partial to either format. both have their advantages. i do think that if microsoft didn't try to include things such as a media player people would have no idea how to play files. my mom could sit down and if a sound file didn't open up she'd have no idea how to fix that. people want an os that will work. i think the same thing can be said for apple too. why does it come with ilife and quicktime? honestly, if you took ms out of the picture what os would take over? the average person buying a $499 computer system from dell can't afford a $2000 system from apple. is linux a viable option? not at all. it seems the governments are going after microsoft while the normal computer user doesn't care.

Believe me, I hate MS as much as the next guy, but business is business - the point is to make a superior product and CRUSH the competition.

It's a tough issue - I mean, how would we react if the courts told Apple they couldn't package Quicktime or iTunes with each new computer....?

What if Apple owned 95% of the market? Seeing as they make the hardware AND software, what kind of monopoly would people call that?...

whooleytoo
Mar 24, 2004, 12:06 PM
I agree with most analysts - the fine isn't that significant, but the other sanctions could really help Microsoft's competitors.

RHutch
Mar 24, 2004, 12:07 PM
No way will they reveal their code. That ruling will be overturned on the appeal. That's like asking KFC what's their 11 herbs and spices.

KFC doesn't use their secret blend of 11 herbs and spices in a monopolistic way. And KFC's use of 11 herbs and spices doesn't prevent other chicken from being edible.

They are saying that MS has to license some of the code so that other products can interact with MS products properly. I think that this will be upheld.

JasonL
Mar 24, 2004, 12:09 PM
I'm not really a fan of the decision. Consumers certainly have a choice, as we all can attest to. MS is where it is today because of superior execution as a business. Honestly, I (like many here), have a distaste for MS products; so I don't buy them.

Wes
Mar 24, 2004, 12:16 PM
hey guys, i'm a little confused on why they have to reveal there code and what the point of that is?

is it so other operating systems can copy what windows is doing?

is os x code available? not to knowledgeable on this so i was curious

From Apple's site in the section about "OS Foundation":

"Beneath the easy-to-use interface and rich graphics of Mac OS X is Darwin, an open source UNIX-based foundation built on technologies such as FreeBSD, Mach, Apache, and GCC. Darwin provides a complete UNIX environment, with X11 and POSIX services comparable to Linux or FreeBSD, including familiar kernel, libraries, networking and command-line utilities."

ShadowHunter
Mar 24, 2004, 12:19 PM
I don't care for Microsoft or its products anymore then the next guy, but I think this "holy war" mentality needs to end.

These rulings are coming down from world-class moronic beauracrats, they don't understand how operating systems or computers work. IE, WMP, they are all integrated into XP; just like QuickTime, iTunes, and Safari are integrated into OS X. Take out those components, and that removes a lot of the capabilities of the OS. For example, doesn't OS X use QuickTime to display some of the effects? Like Expose? It's biased, and really comes across as jealousy more then anything else, to think you can rule on Microsoft in one way and let everyone else do the same thing.

If you really don't like Microsoft as a monoply, do something about it. Provide tax incentives to Microsoft for being competitive and to their competitors for coming up with new ideas, have government organizations re-evaluate using MS software (OpenOffice for instance), etc. You can grow the economy, deal with the problem, and encourage the tech industry to come back; sounds a lot better then just sitting around and levying retarded rulings that have about as much effect in dealing with the issue as smoking pot does.

rog
Mar 24, 2004, 12:19 PM
Call me crazy, but I'll think they'll weasel their way out of this. Even so, this amount is chump change for them. I hope the EU really stands up to them. They should demand that they break up or impose $100 taxes for every OS copy they sell or something ballsy. I don't understand while illegal, anti-competetive monopolies are just allowed to continue to do whatever they want.

Stella
Mar 24, 2004, 12:19 PM
Far more than the US DOJ did.

But there is more - EU will fish out to MS - did you see MS will required to give open up windows somewhat, and that they will need to strip out media player.

So, its not just about the fine.

For people saying "but 500 million is a small amount for ms to pay", please read the entire article - especially aabout the sansactions the EU will place on MS.


Unfortunately this is just a slap on the wrist. They have over 50 billion in cash reserves! Not to mention all the assetts, etc, so really means nothing except a few people losing their jobs!

Photorun
Mar 24, 2004, 12:25 PM
Hah Hahhhh!

Skiniftz
Mar 24, 2004, 12:26 PM
Well if you think Microsoft are bad, I shudder to think what Apple would be like in the same position. Imagine just simply trying to buy new computers. It takes them 4 weeks to get anything to us as it is, and THEN we find out it was sent to the wrong address.

howard
Mar 24, 2004, 12:27 PM
if they strip out media player can people just go and download it? could this windows verison have a prompt when you clicked on an audio file saying.. go here and download wmp?

RHutch
Mar 24, 2004, 12:30 PM
These rulings are coming down from world-class moronic beauracrats, they don't understand how operating systems or computers work. IE, WMP, they are all integrated into XP; just like QuickTime, iTunes, and Safari are integrated into OS X. Take out those components, and that removes a lot of the capabilities of the OS. For example, doesn't OS X use QuickTime to display some of the effects? Like Expose? It's biased, and really comes across as jealousy more then anything else, to think you can rule on Microsoft in one way and let everyone else do the same thing.


First, you don't know that the people working on this decision don't have the necessary knowledge of computers or an OS. Also, there is a difference between being bundled with and OS and being integrated with the OS. The Apple products you mentioned are bundled with the OS; they are not integrated into it. You can remove any of those items without affecting the rest of the system.

MS plans to integrate Explorer into the next version of Windows. And they claim that removing it or removing Windows Media Player will adversely affect the way that the system operates.

And there is a difference between the QuickTime technology and the QuickTime player. You can take QuickTime Player off a Mac without doing anything other than removing the ability to use it for playing media. You would just have to use another player.

So it's not really about bias or jealousy; there is a difference in the situations.

Foocha
Mar 24, 2004, 12:31 PM
The US courts found Microsoft to have illegally commingled code. The case is quite literally closed on that one.

No one is say saying that you should not distibute Operating Systems bundled with handy applications like media players & Web browsers. Of course you should.

It's just a question of whether there should be choice, or whether everyone should be forced to accept the Microsoft solution.

There is no reason why Internet Explorer code has to be so mixed up with Windows code. If Microsoft had done a good job in the first place, there would be well designed and documented APIs for other developers like Mozilla to swap-out IE for their own HTML rendering engine.

Mac OS X is distributed with iTunes, but the code is not commingled - it is possible to remove iTunes and still have a working copy of Mac OS X.

Quartz is used to render Exposé, not QuickTime.

Edited for grammar

Foocha
Mar 24, 2004, 12:33 PM
It's true though that Apple would not get away with half so much if they were in Microsoft's near-monopolistic position! Whilst you may feel sorry for Microsoft because of this, I think you should bear in mind that if they had played a little fairer in the first place, they probably would not be in so much hot water today.

rjeffreyproctor
Mar 24, 2004, 12:34 PM
sweet :-)

Mr_Ed
Mar 24, 2004, 12:36 PM
why do you all think microsoft is this big evil company? let's be honest people, they've made a lot of good innovations in technology. if we didn't have one main os in the market, not as many people would be using a computer. your average person doesn't want to have to learn another os. i use my ibook for portable things and my pc for my home so i'm not partial to either format. both have their advantages. i do think that if microsoft didn't try to include things such as a media player people would have no idea how to play files. my mom could sit down and if a sound file didn't open up she'd have no idea how to fix that. people want an os that will work. i think the same thing can be said for apple too. why does it come with ilife and quicktime? honestly, if you took ms out of the picture what os would take over? the average person buying a $499 computer system from dell can't afford a $2000 system from apple. is linux a viable option? not at all. it seems the governments are going after microsoft while the normal computer user doesn't care.

I agree that whether or not M$ bundles a media player with the OS is by itself, not a big deal. One of the more problematic aspects of what M$ has done is that it claims the OS itself is basically rendered "inoperable" if they DO NOT include things like IE or the Media Player. This is just plain wrong, and if it isn't, it is further evidence that M$ is selling crap since a first year computer science student understands why there are layers in software and why you separate 'system' software from 'application' software. They make those claims because they know the average user will take to whatever is already there and will not bother to explore alternatives from competitors.

I don't personally know anyone who has actually bought a $499 computer from Dell (or anyone else). By the time they they throw in all the other add-ons required to make it even a marginally desirable system, they spend considerably more. The '$499' figure just helps promote the myth that PCs cost far less than Macs.

I'm also interested in your assertion that M$ has made a lot of good innovations in technology. Everything I have ever seen M$ do with regard to technology turned out to be a bad "knock-off" of some existing technology. In most cases, their attempts yielded that was not as good/reliable as the original, or was "proprietary" and closed (would not operate with the existing item).

I make software for a living and I just find it very hard to have any kind of respect for M$, what they do, and how they do it. I hate that they have made so much money by pushing "crap" to the masses, and to a large degree, convinced the public that it's OK and that is just what should be expected when they use a computer.

-- Mr_Ed steps off the soap box -- :)

bryanc
Mar 24, 2004, 12:41 PM
IE, WMP, they are all integrated into XP; just like QuickTime, iTunes, and Safari are integrated into OS X. Take out those components, and that removes a lot of the capabilities of the OS. For example, doesn't OS X use QuickTime to display some of the effects? Like Expose?

I think you're thinking of quartz here...you can delete your quicktime player, safari, iTunes, or any other app from your OS X system and it will work fine. You can install any other piece of software, and it will have access to the same underlying OS services (including quartz). If it is well written, it will work as well as any Apple software.

This is not true on windows. Microsoft's application software (Office (esp. Access), media player, IE, etc.) is so deeply integrated into the OS that it can do things other applications can't (including completely bollix your system). This is part of Microsoft's argument...they can't easily remove their media player application because they've made it a core part of the OS. But what the courts are saying is that that's unfair. How can a non-microsoft software developer hope to compete with Microsoft when they can integrate their applications with their OS? (Microsoft broke my irony-meter when they quit developing IE for the Mac because they said they couldn't compete with Safari due to lack of knowledge about the internals of the OS).

This integration of applications with the OS is great for killing competition, but it's horrendously awful software design, and is one of the reasons Windows is such a bloated, bug-infested, bletcherous mess.

I just wish some Judge would turn out to have a degree in comp-sci, and when the Microsoft lawyers argued "we can't remove our browser, because it's part of our OS" the Judge would say "that was a stupid-ass thing to do...I'm going to fine you for your monopolistic behaviour, and add another fine for being incompetent programmers!"

Cheers

slowtreme
Mar 24, 2004, 12:42 PM
Why is this being voted as positive? If MS is forced to remove browser/mediaplayers/IMclients from Windows, MacOS, Linux, and others may be subject to the same restrictions. Integrated or not, if you force one company to do without, they will all need to follow suit.

Blind MS haters are going to find themselves in a lurch soon.

steeleclipse
Mar 24, 2004, 12:49 PM
No way will they reveal their code. That ruling will be overturned on the appeal. That's like asking KFC what's their 11 herbs and spices.

If they want the code, they should just ask me....

take 3.11,
add a nasty blue GUI,
get a preschooler to head up the networking department,
remove any traces of stability and true plug-and-play,
combine a hint of kernel panics and error reporting,
and top it off with several different security holes and worm viruses...

VOILA! Windows XP! (pro)

:)

Wes
Mar 24, 2004, 12:49 PM
Why is this being voted as positive? If MS is forced to remove browser/mediaplayers/IMclients from Windows, MacOS, Linux, and others may be subject to the same restrictions. Integrated or not, if you force one company to do without, they will all need to follow suit.

Blind MS haters are going to find themselves in a lurch soon.

They are being forced to remove this because they are using it unfairly, and making it hard for competitors to make their own IM/Browsers/Media Players. As proven in this thread, you can remove QT/Safari/iTunes/iChat etc with no adverse effects, which is not true of Microsoft.

Foocha
Mar 24, 2004, 12:53 PM
Why is this being voted as positive? If MS is forced to remove browser/mediaplayers/IMclients from Windows, MacOS, Linux, and others may be subject to the same restrictions. Integrated or not, if you force one company to do without, they will all need to follow suit.

Blind MS haters are going to find themselves in a lurch soon.

It's not an issue for Apple because they're not in a monopolistic position. It is because Microsoft has a near monopoly that they must take care not to exploit that monopoly.

Linux is a different matter altogether - since it's entirely open source, free software, and there are many different distributions of it, Linux users will never be held to ransom by one greedy & selfish software vendor.

AmigoMac
Mar 24, 2004, 12:58 PM
/*Windows source code.*/
/*
TOP SECRET Microsoft(c) Code
Project: Chicago(tm)
Projected release-date: Summer 1998
*/

#include "win31.h"
#include "win95.h"
#include "evenmore.h"
#include "oldstuff.h"
#include "billrulz.h"
#define INSTALL_HARD

char make_prog_look_big 1600000 ;

void main()
{
while(!CRASHED)
{
display_copyright_message();
display_bill_rules_message();
do_nothing_loop();

if (first_time_installation)
{
make_50_megabyte_swapfile();
do_nothing_loop();
totally_screw_up_HPFS_file_system();
search_and_destroy_the_rest_of_OS/2();
hang_system();
}

write_something(anything);
display_copyright_message();
do_nothing_loop();
do_some_stuff();
if (still_not_crashed)
{
display_copyright_message();
do_nothing_loop();
basically_run_windows_3.1();
do_nothing_loop();
do_nothing_loop();
}
}

if (detect_cache())
disable_cache();

if (fast_cpu())
{
set_wait_states(lots);
set_mouse(speed, very_slow);
set_mouse(action, jumpy);
set_mouse(reaction, sometimes);
}

/* printf("Welcome to Windows 3.11"); */
/* printf("Welcome to Windows 95"); */
printf("Welcome to Windows 98");

if (system_ok())
crash(to_dos_prompt);
else
system_memory = open("a:\swp0001.swp", O_CREATE);

while(something)
{
sleep(5);
get_user_input();
sleep(5);
act_on_user_input();
sleep(5);
}
create_general_protection_fault();

}

:cool: ;) :D

Stolid
Mar 24, 2004, 01:00 PM
The WSJ had a really good article about this; its stupid
A) These are basically the same complaints leveraged in US courts against MS. The EU does not need to become 'Round 2' for legal battles that lose in the US (or vice versa, or anywhere else for that matter) -- the US has double jeopardy for a reason and this is it.
I love the rulings; "share code so people can better interoperate with Windows" -- because we've had such trouble writing Windows apps the past 15 years+? The fines are silly; the ruling is silly; etc.
Microsoft does innovate, and they innovated early and on a cheap 'free for all' platform of the x86. They became the big name; but I see competition. The average semi-tech user knows about OS X and Linux; they decide not to use on average. I don't buy the MS monopoly at all. Are they the 'big name'? Well yes. But its only slightly worse than soda (Take the MacOS switcher challenge; which one is easier? and then there's your little Royal-Cro, er, Linux in the corner; and quite a few other little names. Then you have your subbrands. Windows XP, 98, the failure of Crystal Pepsi (ME) ;) -- media edition, diet server console, etc.

But all I'm seeing in this thread is "OMG! M$ SUCKS! YAY!" -- reminds me of this:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-07-22&res=l

Foocha
Mar 24, 2004, 01:06 PM
But all I'm seeing in this thread is "OMG! M$ SUCKS! YAY!" -- reminds me of this:

I'm actually suprise by how much support Microsoft are getting on this thread, considering this forum is for Mac users.

Also, Microsoft did not win their case against the US DOJ, they lost it... and now they've lost it in the EU as well. I don't see how double jepardy applies.

Griffindor73
Mar 24, 2004, 01:14 PM
Has anyone else noticed the irony that Microsoft actually depends on the existence of Apple?

Whenever they are acused of a Monoply they can just point at Mac OS and Linux and say "There is your choice!"

This is why the bother with Office for Mac.

Much as I love my Mac I can use it as much as I do because of Office- as I need it for stuff at work- you can bet they don't make a lot of cash on it.

As long as Apple and Linux are floating around at the low percentage end of the market Microsoft are quite happy.

What I opject to is that with the market share that they have they still want to control every other aspect of the PC market.

That is where the 'dangerous' side of Microsoft lies.

Titian
Mar 24, 2004, 01:16 PM
I don't think that this fine has anything to do with MS or computers or OS.
The EU needs a lot of money for their intention of expanding to the east. Ar the moment they are short of cash.

They are at the moment trying to put a lot of pressure on Switzerland in order to receive more money from them.
The EU is trying to get money where they can and where there is. I wouldn't be surprised if MS will remain the only US company which will get fined.
After all the EU has learnt from the USA which used and will still uses this strategy to keep their own companies competitive and to fill their own pockets.
This is simply an economic war but don't worry... no blood is involved.
:D

Foocha
Mar 24, 2004, 01:18 PM
This is why the bother with Office for Mac.

As I understand, Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit is a profitable division of Microsoft - unlike much of the rest of Microsoft (only Windows & Office make a profit). So it's not a philanthropic gesture of Microsoft's behalf, or even an attempt to demonstrate that they're not a monopoly - it's a viable business in its own right. If that situation ever changed, I'm sure that they would scrap it altogether.

gwangung
Mar 24, 2004, 01:19 PM
I'm actually suprise by how much support Microsoft are getting on this thread, considering this forum is for Mac users.

Also, Microsoft did not win their case against the US DOJ, they lost it... and now they've lost it in the EU as well. I don't see how double jepardy applies.

Double jeopardy only applies if you think the US legal system is the supreme legal system of the world... :rolleyes:

[C'mon, people, think! If you run an Internet scam that vicitimizes a person in California and one in New York, you've committed two crimes, not one]

dekator
Mar 24, 2004, 01:20 PM
Hey, this is the very first time anybody had the guts to really do something about M$! A 500 million fine + opening up of code + Media Player restriction isn't at all bad. How can you give this a bad rating ? :confused:
As for the English remarks on 'EU ministers': It is *because* of the EU and its functionaries that something is done. If it were for the UK, we wouldn't have *any* anti-monopoly laws or the like (all laws applicable in this respect were opposed by Britain). Indeed, may I remind you that Bill Gates was honoured by the Queen for his merits and the wonderful role M$ has played in the British industry? So you guys better seriously shut up. The EU does a much better job than you will ever realise.
I hope we'll get rid of you blinded-by-prejudice europhobics sooner than later. You're not even really a part of Europe, so get your butts out of the EU. It's a fine club and you certainly don't belong in there. Gosh, I hope next time Windows 'is ****ting down' it will be on you, perhpas-not-so-intelligent whiners.

rhpenguin
Mar 24, 2004, 01:21 PM
This is a good thing. I dont care about the fines to MS, but them being forced to remove un-intergrate WMP is okay in my books. That piece of software is absolutely horrible and since there is no way to actually kill it, your stuck with it there on your system. Also if it breaks its a major pain in the rear to fix it (Its like trying to reinstall IE which is just one big registry hack). I am a big fan of choice, and this ruling (while it wont affect me directly because im in North America) will atleast be a good thing for Windows users overseas from me that want choice as well.

Anyway, thats enough rambling for now.

Makosuke
Mar 24, 2004, 01:21 PM
Believe me, I hate MS as much as the next guy, but business is business - the point is to make a superior product and CRUSH the competition. This, and all the other comments about MS being just another business are true. But when you own 95% of a market, you are a monopolist, period, and that is illegal in almost every country in the world, because it hurts consumers. The best a monopoly can hope for is price-controls and regulation like a utility--power companies, etc.

How does it hurt consumers? Easy, look at MS's bottom line:

http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earn.mspx

They turn profits on the order of 30% at least. Furthermore, if you look at the breakdown, their OS division makes at least 50% profit, and those monopoplistic profits are used to subsidize other divisions into monopolistic positions--the XBox, for example, or MSN.

Normal companies do not make 50% after-expense profit on sales; another company will usually step in with a product selling for half of what your product sells for, and force your prices down or force you out of the market entirely. But if you're a monopoly, you can do anything you want, since there is, in theory, no other choice. This is why Office is a $400 piece of software, when 95% of people would be happy with a word processor that costs $100 and does half as much twice as well.

This is all basic economics, but the bottom line is it's bad for us as consumers, any software monoculture is dangerous for the world at large, and they're a backhanded and petty corporation to boot.

What if Apple owned 95% of the market? Seeing as they make the hardware AND software, what kind of monopoly would people call that?...A monopoly. Just like I'd call any other company with 95% of any other market (Google comes to mind). And if Apple ever owned 95% of the market, they'd be just as deserving of regulation as MS, if not more.

But, at this point, Apple's not a monopoly and MS is.

daveL
Mar 24, 2004, 01:22 PM
why do you all think microsoft is this big evil company? let's be honest people, they've made a lot of good innovations in technology. if we didn't have one main os in the market, not as many people would be using a computer. your average person doesn't want to have to learn another os. i use my ibook for portable things and my pc for my home so i'm not partial to either format. both have their advantages. i do think that if microsoft didn't try to include things such as a media player people would have no idea how to play files. my mom could sit down and if a sound file didn't open up she'd have no idea how to fix that. people want an os that will work. i think the same thing can be said for apple too. why does it come with ilife and quicktime? honestly, if you took ms out of the picture what os would take over? the average person buying a $499 computer system from dell can't afford a $2000 system from apple. is linux a viable option? not at all. it seems the governments are going after microsoft while the normal computer user doesn't care.
Name one. MS has never innovated anything. They copy other peoples innovations. Embrace and extend.

eric_n_dfw
Mar 24, 2004, 01:25 PM
I don't personally know anyone who has actually bought a $499 computer from Dell (or anyone else). By the time they they throw in all the other add-ons required to make it even a marginally desirable system, they spend considerably more. The '$499' figure just helps promote the myth that PCs cost far less than Macs.Actually, for $399 (after $100 rebate), right now, you get:
[list] 2.6GHz Celleron with 400Mhz FSB (effectively 333MHz due to the RAM speed)
256MB DDR RAM @333MHz
40GB HD (add $10 for 7200RPM, $40 for 80GB 7200RPM, $80 for 120GB 7200RPM)
48x CD-ROM
48x CD-RW
17" CRT
1 Year Warranty (add $29 for 2 Year)
"Integrated" Intel Video Card (good enough for the target audience)

That's $399 folks. Like it or not.

Not a kick-butt gaming rig or anything, but more than capable of day-to-day pc usage.

Oh - it comes with XP Home, Word Perfect and MS Money, FWIW.

dekator
Mar 24, 2004, 01:28 PM
I don't think that this fine has anything to do with MS or computers or OS.
The EU needs a lot of money for their intention of expanding to the east. Ar the moment they are short of cash.

They are at the moment trying to put a lot of pressure on Switzerland in order to receive more money from them.
The EU is trying to get money where they can and where there is. I wouldn't be surprised if MS will remain the only US company which will get fined.
After all the EU has learnt from the USA which used and will still uses this strategy to keep their own companies competitive and to fill their own pockets.
This is simply an economic war but don't worry... no blood is involved.
:D
All previously fined companies were EU companies. The EU needs money, to be sure. Who doesn't ? However, there are far more serious issues at hand here. Europe has been very uncomfortable with Microsoft's software monomania for a long time and there is no reason to trivialize it. Look, there is no country that has payed more or is paying more money in the EU than Germany. Although I understand that money is very, very dear to the Swiss, you shouldn't really get upset about the mosquito crap Switzerland may have to pay...

eric_n_dfw
Mar 24, 2004, 01:32 PM
Name one. MS has never innovated anything. They copy other peoples innovations. Embrace and extend.XP's fast user switching comes to mind.

Maybe not an "invention" so-to-speak, but I was sure happy with OS X got it last summer. The best part of 10.3 as far as I'm concerned.

jsw
Mar 24, 2004, 01:37 PM
XP's fast user switching comes to mind.

Maybe not an "invention" so-to-speak, but I was sure happy with OS X got it last summer. The best part of 10.3 as far as I'm concerned.


Of course, it looks cooler on the Mac than on XP. :)

Foxer
Mar 24, 2004, 01:39 PM
Name one. MS has never innovated anything. They copy other peoples innovations. Embrace and extend.

Microsoft Bob.

RHutch
Mar 24, 2004, 01:40 PM
Why is this being voted as positive? If MS is forced to remove browser/mediaplayers/IMclients from Windows, MacOS, Linux, and others may be subject to the same restrictions. Integrated or not, if you force one company to do without, they will all need to follow suit.

Blind MS haters are going to find themselves in a lurch soon.

Please read the rest of the thread. There is a difference between distributing other software with an OS (like QT player) and making software a part of the OS. They are not going to have Apple remove these pieces from Macs because they are extra, not things included in the OS.

Also, you don't have to make everyone do the same thing. They are only applying this to MS because they have found MS to be abusing their monopoly. The punishment fits the crime.

slowtreme
Mar 24, 2004, 01:41 PM
They are being forced to remove this because they are using it unfairly, and making it hard for competitors to make their own IM/Browsers/Media Players.If you force one company to do without, they will all need to follow suit. Take off the blinders and you will see this too. If any vendor today sold an OS without these tools it would be considered incomplete.

I don't see a reason why any product should be coded with the option to randomly delete parts of it either. I wouldn't like customers hacking parts of my apps out, and then complaining that XX addon doesn't work as well.

Clearly you can install alternative Browsers, Media Players, etc. on Windows and they will operate. On my windows box at home and I never see IE, WMP, or MSN. It doesn't affect me, and it does not limit me from using alternatives.

Trimix
Mar 24, 2004, 01:44 PM
Today Entourage packed up - seriously, I had a mesage in my delete folder, which I tried to delete-delete and everytime I would mark it, Entourage froze and gave me the BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH - it was so funny. In the end Entourage could not even be started up again. Now with a semi-comatose MS-Entourage (6 hours of heavy duty rescuscitation failed), I set up MAIL in 5 minutes and continued working. You MS apologetics out there - you know what that is called ? Choice.
And to those who use their Moms as examples, give the ladies more credit - and realistically - we do not know where we would be today without MS, but it might just be that they stifled innovation - that at least seems the complaint levelled against them. Microsoft feeds the smallest common denominator as its operating system must work for 98% of the world population - that is hardly the stuff of innovation and advancement but rather dull and mediocre.

RHutch
Mar 24, 2004, 01:46 PM
I'm actually suprise by how much support Microsoft are getting on this thread, considering this forum is for Mac users.

Also, Microsoft did not win their case against the US DOJ, they lost it... and now they've lost it in the EU as well. I don't see how double jepardy applies.

Also, double jeopardy only applies to actions in the US. Just because you have had a trial in one country for what you did wrong there doesn't mean you can't be tried in another country for crimes committed there. MS's business practices have affected people all over the world, not just in the US.

Spades
Mar 24, 2004, 01:53 PM
How does it hurt consumers? Easy, look at MS's bottom line:

It's even easier than that. Go back the American case a few years ago. That case concerned Netscape and Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer. Did Microsoft's actions hurt the consumer? Were they unfair to Netscape? Without a doubt. Netscape no longer produces their own browser. They just rebrand Mozilla. Netscape is little more than a portal site now. Meanwhile, Internet Explorer is still one of the most popular browsers, despite not having been updated in over two and a half years. (8/28/2001 seems to be the release date for IE6. Since then it hasn't even had any minor releases. Just a service pack and security fixes.) It remains popular mostly because MS still gets to bundle IE with the OS. There are definitely better alternatives now. Most alternative browsers support much newer standards than IE6 does. But, because MS still gets to bundle, people do not use the better alternatives.

So, yes, the actions of Microsoft that concerned the US case were indeed anti-competative and bad for the consumer. And they were found guilty. Unfortunately, no useful penalty was enforced, and nothing has really changed.

Of course, that's all PC stuff. I know we're not supposed to like MS (and I don't), but what does this story really have to do with Macs?

RHutch
Mar 24, 2004, 01:55 PM
If you force one company to do without, they will all need to follow suit. Take off the blinders and you will see this too. If any vendor today sold an OS without these tools it would be considered incomplete.

I don't see a reason why any product should be coded with the option to randomly delete parts of it either. I wouldn't like customers hacking parts of my apps out, and then complaining that XX addon doesn't work as well.

Clearly you can install alternative Browsers, Media Players, etc. on Windows and they will operate. On my windows box at home and I never see IE, WMP, or MSN. It doesn't affect me, and it does not limit me from using alternatives.

MS is not being required to get rid of their media player. They are being told to make it a separate piece of software that can be removed from one's hard drive if they choose, rather than being part of the OS that you don't have a choice about. This is a piece of software that the user has control over. And why would removing it cause the system not to work properly? No one should have to call and complain because removing a media player should not break your system.

Are you seeing the difference yet between this and Apple's QT player?

RHutch
Mar 24, 2004, 01:59 PM
/*Windows source code.*/
/*
TOP SECRET Microsoft(c) Code
Project: Chicago(tm)
Projected release-date: Summer 1998
*/
:
:
:
while(something)
{
sleep(5);
get_user_input();
sleep(5);
act_on_user_input();
sleep(5);
}
create_general_protection_fault();

}

:cool: ;) :D
This is the funniest thing I have read in a long time. I literally had tears streaming down my face, and I had to hold in my laughing so that all the people in the cubes around didn't think I was going crazy. Thanks for the entertainment.

slowtreme
Mar 24, 2004, 02:03 PM
Did Microsoft's actions hurt the consumer? Were they unfair to Netscape? Without a doubt. Netscape no longer produces their own browser. They just rebrand Mozilla. Netscape is little more than a portal site now.Wow this really sucks that I am defending MS here.

Microsoft created a better alternative to the Netscape product. When IE took off in popularity Netscape was horrible, hands down. MS provided a free and functioning alternative. They took away Netscape's market, actually they showed that there was no need for NS to bother selling thier product anymore, it was crap, and there already free alternatives (other than IE). This is also the same time Software like BeOS was hitting the street with with integrated browser, and every other OS vendor was starting to follow suit. MS was following the market. It wasn't until IE5 that MS began to merge/share code with the file explorer. At the time IE was easily the best functioning browser, integrated or not.

For all of Window's pitfalls, I don't see how removing IE makes it a better product for consumers.

slowtreme
Mar 24, 2004, 02:09 PM
And why would removing it cause the system not to work properly?It doesn't. As a matter of fact WMP9 was a seperate download, it didn't even come with windows (when this case started) The bundled product like WMP6 can be deleted and forgotten. Windows won't stop running if you delete or uninstall WMP. You will lose a default viewer for much of the rich content available for PCs, but that's your call as a user.

Sedulous
Mar 24, 2004, 02:23 PM
I'm pretty certain that the EU ruling to seperate the Media Player from Windows was intended to be a slap... a means to hobble Microscoft as they are attempting to dominate the media industry too.

Foocha
Mar 24, 2004, 02:23 PM
You're not even really a part of Europe

Au contraire. The UK is very much a part of Europe - geographically, politically and ecconomically. We are (I think) the second largest net contributor to the EU budget, and have every right to be interested in how European income from fines and such are distributed!

Everyone in Euorpe and on this message board surely have the right to express their opinions, provided they conduct themselves in a measured and reasonable manner.

Spades
Mar 24, 2004, 02:24 PM
They merged the code with the release of IE4 and Windows 98. IE4 is also the last time IE and Netscape were about equivalent. At least it was in my opinion, and the opinion of many people I know. Yes, IE5 was better, but that came after the bundling had occured and the damage to Netscape started.

Anyways, the issue is this. Any OS should have a browser included these days. The question is, what browser? Most operating systems give you a choice. Pick any two Linux distros, and you'll probably find two different default browsers. There's a sign of competition. Look at OS X. Apple is the only distributor of OS X, so...you get Safari as a default. But you also get Internet Explorer, and you can, if you want, remove either one of them.

Now look at Windows. There are multiple OEMs that use Windows, yet every Windows PC will come with exactly one web browser that cannot be removed. No competition. Anti-competative even. The key here is that OEMs need the option to remove IE and install another browser. Providing alternatives increases competition, and if IE is actually forced to compete with the likes of Mozilla and Opera, MS will have to begin to improve IE again. But, as long as it comes, no questions asked, as the default browser of Windows, people will not explore competative options. Minimal competiton means MS continues to let IE stagnate.

Wow this really sucks that I am defending MS here.

Microsoft created a better alternative to the Netscape product. When IE took off in popularity Netscape was horrible, hands down. MS provided a free and functioning alternative. They took away Netscape's market, actually they showed that there was no need for NS to bother selling thier product anymore, it was crap, and there already free alternatives (other than IE). This is also the same time Software like BeOS was hitting the street with with integrated browser, and every other OS vendor was starting to follow suit. MS was following the market. It wasn't until IE5 that MS began to merge/share code with the file explorer. At the time IE was easily the best functioning browser, integrated or not.

For all of Window's pitfalls, I don't see how removing IE makes it a better product for consumers.

SiliconAddict
Mar 24, 2004, 02:26 PM
I don't care for Microsoft or its products anymore then the next guy, but I think this "holy war" mentality needs to end.

These rulings are coming down from world-class moronic beauracrats, they don't understand how operating systems or computers work. IE, WMP, they are all integrated into XP; just like QuickTime, iTunes, and Safari are integrated into OS X. Take out those components, and that removes a lot of the capabilities of the OS. For example, doesn't OS X use QuickTime to display some of the effects? Like Expose? It's biased, and really comes across as jealousy more then anything else, to think you can rule on Microsoft in one way and let everyone else do the same thing.

Do people spew forth the crap uttered by Microsoft without THINKING about it first?!?!

It was proven during Microsoft's antitrust trial that you could indeed remove internet explorer without killing the functionality much to Microsoft's chagrin. Since that time yes. They have further integrated the browser into Windows since that trial but saying it can't be removed is purely asinine as is the notion that media player can't be removed. Media Player and part of Internet Explore both reside as stand alone executables for the OS. (See below.) Both of these files are necessary for media player and IE to function and I would put forth that since no one know what windows source code looks like that no one really knows how integrated it is and would suggest Microsoft is lying out of their *** when it comes to how hard it would be. Think about it a second. Without that monopoly MS would NEVER have won the browser wars. I will say this about media player. See bullcrap1. This is a hidden option in Windows XP. You have to tweak an INF file to get it to show up. Unchackmarking that doesn't remove the files but it starts the process. Once done you will see in bullcrap2 that those files for media player are located under program files. An odd place to store OS files but I digress. In bullcrap3 you will see I've renamed all the files along with the 3 other locations hidden in windows where it backs the files up to. Reboot and no more media player and lo and behold Windows still works! It’s a freaking miracle !
Look everyone in the last 5-10 years has demonized the word monopoly to the point of it being a swear. In reality its not. Its what you DO with that monopoly is what matters and Microsoft has screwed the industry over as much as possible with that monopoly. They use **** tactics. They create phony campaigns to try and swing political opinion. They by out the competition when they can't compete. In summery they are the most sleazy, dirtball, lowlife company on this planet. Unfortunately what happens when you don't discipline a child?
Think about it a second.
That's where the DOJ failed miserably.
Antitrust rules are here for a reason in this country. If Microsoft was forced to remove IE, and media player from Windows and allowed the OEM to make the choice as to which browser to use you would see iTunes and FireFox make short work out of Media Player and Internet Imploder. Simply put the only reason these apps own the market is because Microsoft owns the market. A monopoly can NOT be compaired to the rest of the pack. They are special because they own the market. People think this is picking on MS. Its not. Its trying to play fair and to play fair you need to look at MS as a 80 ton gorilla vs a 30 pound chimp.

PS- One final note. The notion of integrating an app into the OS. That idea could only be born out of a boardroom. What a perfect excuse to tell a court. I can't remove it because it would be too hard. What a load of bull.

1macker1
Mar 24, 2004, 02:32 PM
MS didnt start off as a monolopy. They had a aggressive business plan that others couldnt match. Take the some of the dumbass business decisions that apple made years age, and the slow rise of Linux, I say MS counldn't avoid being a monolopy.

briankonar
Mar 24, 2004, 02:37 PM
It's not enough to stop them. If only the United States government had the balls to stand up to them, then we would see action happening. This EU settlement is just a slap on the wrist and Microsoft will appeal it and nothing notable will occur.

the US and Microsoft are best friends...Microsoft could probably bank roll the US. (considering Bush has turned a budget surplus into an all time deficit.)

Makosuke
Mar 24, 2004, 02:38 PM
Wow this really sucks that I am defending MS here.

Microsoft created a better alternative to the Netscape product. When IE took off in popularity Netscape was horrible, hands down. MS provided a free and functioning alternative. They took away Netscape's market, actually they showed that there was no need for NS to bother selling thier product anymore, it was crap, and there already free alternatives (other than IE).

[...]
I can almost understand people having an opinion like this, but it misses two very fundamental parts of what happened during and as a result of the browser war.

Big Problem #1: IE is undeniablly the dominant browser on the web at this point. It does not behave properly on many standards, and includes many non-standard things that, although they can be done by standard methods, are proprietary to IE. People use these proprietary extensions, and code to IE's quirks, making sites that only work or work better in IE. This makes it hard for other companies to compete with IE, whether their product is free or better.

And what has Microsoft done in response to this situation? You now have exactly two choices of ways to get an upgrade of IE, either on Windows or the Mac: You can buy a new copy of Windows, want it or not, since it comes with the next version of the browser, or you can pay MSN $10 a month for their software package, which includes IE6 for Mac or IEsorta7 for Windows. $10 a month. That is bad for consumers.

Big Problem #2: Netscape 4 was indeed a pretty crappy browser. Not much crappier than the concurrent version of IE for Windows, if you ask me, but that's not why MS won the browser war. They built IE into the OS for free, made it a bit of effort to remove as the default (web browser as a file browser?!), ran MS services through proprietary extensions to it (WindowsUpdate), and coerced companies into installing it. Since everybody uses MS's OS, and 90% of people don't have the technical skill or time to mess around with installing an alternate, IE use expanded as people upgraded. And no major competitors stepped up, because who in their right mind competes with a preinstalled piece of free MS software? It would've been nearly impossible for MS to loose that war, regardless of quality, and only now do we pay the price.

Dippo
Mar 24, 2004, 02:44 PM
Do people spew forth the crap uttered by Microsoft without THINKING about it first?!?!

It was proven during Microsoft's antitrust trial that you could indeed remove internet explorer without killing the functionality much to Microsoft's chagrin. Since that time yes.......

I would like to add a bit to this rant.

Anyone who has used Windows Server 2003 will know that there are a lot of things that are supposedly "unremovable" in XP that don't even come with Server 2003.

WMP and stuff like netmeeting can easliy be removed. And MSN Messanger isn't even included with the default install.

Everyone knows Microsoft is trying to maintain their monopoly how ever they can. The only products of Microsoft's that make any profit is their OS and Office. Everything else they do is maintain their monopoly in these areas and shut out all competition.

If Microsoft didn't put their greed above their own customers, they would be a much better company for us all.

erockerboy
Mar 24, 2004, 02:47 PM
I realize that any voice of dissent amid the reflexive anti-M$ vitriol here is likely to be a complete waste of breath. But:

Has it occurred to anyone here that as far as the EU legal "hook" is concerned, the ONLY difference between a M$ and an Apple is... MARKET SHARE?

That's right, our beloved Steve Jobs is just as much of a "monopolist" as Evil Bill. An OS w/ a bundled media player? The NERVE! C'mon people, if Apple had Microsoft's market share today they would be in EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION - namely, the brunt of both popular ire and bureaucratic lust for "revenue enhancement".

Microsoft went wrong by being TOO SUCCESSFUL - no more and no less. And now they're being penalized for that. While I'm certainly no fan of Microsoft's products, I can't stomach the idea of governmental greed sabotaging the very engine of the free enterprise system... and I would encourage the knee-jerk M$ bashers to suspend emotion for a minute and look at the legal issues from the standpoint of dispassionate consumer self-interest.

Then again, I vote Libertarian. So what the hell do I know. :D

Mr_Ed
Mar 24, 2004, 02:47 PM
Actually, for $399 (after $100 rebate), right now, you get:
[list] 2.6GHz Celleron with 400Mhz FSB (effectively 333MHz due to the RAM speed)
256MB DDR RAM @333MHz
40GB HD (add $10 for 7200RPM, $40 for 80GB 7200RPM, $80 for 120GB 7200RPM)
48x CD-ROM
48x CD-RW
17" CRT
1 Year Warranty (add $29 for 2 Year)
"Integrated" Intel Video Card (good enough for the target audience)

That's $399 folks. Like it or not.

Not a kick-butt gaming rig or anything, but more than capable of day-to-day pc usage.

Oh - it comes with XP Home, Word Perfect and MS Money, FWIW.

I understand what you say, but I've never personally met anyone who wanted to do nothing more than "surf the web" (though I'm sure they are out there) and that's about all you will do effectively with the base machine. Hell, even my parents (techno-phobes of the worst kind :)) now do much more than that on their computers (digital photography, video, music, etc.). Unsuspecting customers with little knowledge may buy the base system, and many of them will quickly outgrow it as they become aware of all they could be doing with the computer.

agreenster
Mar 24, 2004, 02:54 PM
Where's that dancing banana when you need it?

Foocha
Mar 24, 2004, 02:55 PM
Has it occurred to anyone here that as far as the EU legal "hook" is concerned, the ONLY difference between a M$ and an Apple is... MARKET SHARE?

If you'd read much of the thread, you would have seen that many posters had already acknowledged this, and that there are many on this thread putting the Microsoft case.

However:

1. Apple does not mix up Application & OS code in the way that Microsoft does

2. Apple is not a monopoly whereas Microsoft is. It is not a critisism to describe Microsoft as a monopoly, just a statement of fact. As a monopoly they are bound by certain strictures that do not currently apply to Apple.

noxes
Mar 24, 2004, 02:57 PM
Ok don't get mad at me for this, but could the EU or US Gov come after Apple because of QuickTime? or how is WMP attached differently to Windows?

Edit: Hey I am no longer a newbie :cool:

thewickedmusic
Mar 24, 2004, 03:10 PM
I don't care for Microsoft or its products anymore then the next guy, but I think this "holy war" mentality needs to end.

These rulings are coming down from world-class moronic beauracrats, they don't understand how operating systems or computers work. IE, WMP, they are all integrated into XP; just like QuickTime, iTunes, and Safari are integrated into OS X. Take out those components, and that removes a lot of the capabilities of the OS. For example, doesn't OS X use QuickTime to display some of the effects? Like Expose? It's biased, and really comes across as jealousy more then anything else, to think you can rule on Microsoft in one way and let everyone else do the same thing.

;)
You can't really compair the "intergration" of IE, & WMP to that of safari, quicktime and itunes for many extreme reasons. On a mac you dont need to use safari to browse your hard disc like you need Internet Explorer to correctly view a disc on Windows. iTunes can be deleted whenever you want. While iTunes requires quicktime for some of its features such as AAC support, if you deleted quicktime itunes wouldn't shut down. Quicktime is not like windows media player because it can easily be deleted from the system without any major effects. While it does help render some of the elements in OSX, if you were to delete it Quartz, Quartz Extreme, and Open GL take over with the rendering. Thats the main difference; if you delete WMP from windows... things go bonkers... if you delete quicktime from OSX... something moves in to take over its job :cool:
Don't belive me? Check out the attachment I got from apple.com
:D :D ;) - please excuse any spelling or grammer mistakes: its spring break, I just woke up, and never have been a very gifted writer :D

coumerelli
Mar 24, 2004, 03:16 PM
it wont make a lick of difference

Microsoft has 50 Billion in Cash laying around.. having too pay 600 mill
wont make any difference in there bottom line..

the fine should have been 30 Billion then they would change there ways

Not to pick exclusively on you adamfilip - but 600 million is 600 million. Just take a few zeros out, and It's a little harder to swallow. If I had 5,000 bucks and was fined $60 - I'd feel it (maybe not much - but I have other bills to pay). And so I dare say I'd feel a loss of $600 million. I'm NOT sticking up for MS, just trying not to look through such rose colored glass. ;)

Spades
Mar 24, 2004, 03:16 PM
And you are exactly right. If Apple was a monopoly, they would have to deal with restrictions just like MS has too. The major difference is that MS is a monopoly and Apple isn't. That is an important difference. For one thing, a monopoly isn't supposed to happen in a free market economy. In the US at least, it's still allowed to happen, BUT when a company becomes a monopoly, certain things are expected of them. The most important thing is that they not leverage that monopoly to go after other markets. That is exactly what MS did though with the browser and media player. The combination of their OS monopoly and the bundling of browser and media player software is illegal.

Also, MS did not go wrong by being too successful. They went wrong by violating the law. They are a repeat offender, and much of their "success" can be directly correllated to old court cases. Consider Windows, and its relationships to Mac OS and OS/2. MS basically got away with that due to shrewd contract negotiation. With Office on the other hand, they've been fined before. I think it was Corel that once brought a suit against MS for requiring OEMs to ship Office with Windows. Sound familiar? There's that bundling thing again. The courts found MS guilty that time too, and issued a fine. MS paid it and then didn't change their ways one bit. Today, Office is one of the few profitable products MS has, even though it seems to be pretty universally hated. How do you suppose that happend? Looks like we have the slap-on-the-wrist fine and continued illegal competition to thank.

The government is not going after MS because they are too successful. They've violated the law, multiple times. Whether or not MS deserves its success is hard to say because its history is so tainted with court cases that haven't really made a difference. Violating the law is violating the law. You're right; it wouldn't surprise me if this is all an attempt to add some change to the EU's bank. That doesn't change that fact that MS violated the law.

Has it occurred to anyone here that as far as the EU legal "hook" is concerned, the ONLY difference between a M$ and an Apple is... MARKET SHARE?

That's right, our beloved Steve Jobs is just as much of a "monopolist" as Evil Bill. An OS w/ a bundled media player? The NERVE! C'mon people, if Apple had Microsoft's market share today they would be in EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION - namely, the brunt of both popular ire and bureaucratic lust for "revenue enhancement".

Microsoft went wrong by being TOO SUCCESSFUL - no more and no less. And now they're being penalized for that.

1macker1
Mar 24, 2004, 03:22 PM
I agree 100%
I realize that any voice of dissent amid the reflexive anti-M$ vitriol here is likely to be a complete waste of breath. But:

Has it occurred to anyone here that as far as the EU legal "hook" is concerned, the ONLY difference between a M$ and an Apple is... MARKET SHARE?

That's right, our beloved Steve Jobs is just as much of a "monopolist" as Evil Bill. An OS w/ a bundled media player? The NERVE! C'mon people, if Apple had Microsoft's market share today they would be in EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION - namely, the brunt of both popular ire and bureaucratic lust for "revenue enhancement".

Microsoft went wrong by being TOO SUCCESSFUL - no more and no less. And now they're being penalized for that. While I'm certainly no fan of Microsoft's products, I can't stomach the idea of governmental greed sabotaging the very engine of the free enterprise system... and I would encourage the knee-jerk M$ bashers to suspend emotion for a minute and look at the legal issues from the standpoint of dispassionate consumer self-interest.

coumerelli
Mar 24, 2004, 03:24 PM
And you are exactly right. If Apple was a monopoly, they would have to deal with restrictions just like MS has too. The major difference is that MS is a monopoly and Apple isn't. That is an important difference. For one thing, a monopoly isn't supposed to happen in a free market economy. In the US at least, it's still allowed to happen, BUT when a company becomes a monopoly, certain things are expected of them. The most important thing is that they not leverage that monopoly to go after other markets. That is exactly what MS did though with the browser and media player. The combination of their OS monopoly and the bundling of browser and media player software is illegal.

Also, MS did not go wrong by being too successful. They went wrong by violating the law. They are a repeat offender, and much of their "success" can be directly correllated to old court cases. Consider Windows, and its relationships to Mac OS and OS/2. MS basically got away with that due to shrewd contract negotiation. With Office on the other hand, they've been fined before. I think it was Corel that once brought a suit against MS for requiring OEMs to ship Office with Windows. Sound familiar? There's that bundling thing again. The courts found MS guilty that time too, and issued a fine. MS paid it and then didn't change their ways one bit. Today, Office is one of the few profitable products MS has, even though it seems to be pretty universally hated. How do you suppose that happend? Looks like we have the slap-on-the-wrist fine and continued illegal competition to thank.

The government is not going after MS because they are too successful. They've violated the law, multiple times. Whether or not MS deserves its success is hard to say because its history is so tainted with court cases that haven't really made a difference. Violating the law is violating the law. You're right; it wouldn't surprise me if this is all an attempt to add some change to the EU's bank. That doesn't change that fact that MS violated the law.

Bravo!

thejazzman10
Mar 24, 2004, 03:29 PM
Does the windows world HAVE any secrets??? :confused:

Stolid
Mar 24, 2004, 03:40 PM
I'm actually suprise by how much support Microsoft are getting on this thread, considering this forum is for Mac users.

Also, Microsoft did not win their case against the US DOJ, they lost it... and now they've lost it in the EU as well. I don't see how double jepardy applies.
It's not double jeopardy in the first place because of exactly what I said - "in the US" -- the EU is clearly not the US.
It doesn't MATTER if MS lost vs DOJ. Double Jeopardy is Double Jeopardy -- I sue you for breaking my arm and get $1 million. Then I sue you again for the exact same event and net another cool million. Rinse repeat. That's double jeopardy.
The EU is not the same as the US but the charges are basically the same -- the companies that brought the charges, IIRC, are US based companies. They went to the EU because the US already ruled on the MS monopoly.


Further, Monopolies are NOT illegal. Chances are your power provider is a monopoly, where is the competition for them? What about cable -- if you can't have a satillite and want more than broadcast how many cable providers do you have? Both of these are known 'regulated monopolies' -- there are other monopolies that are unregulated. What makes a monopoly illegal is strong-arming out competition. Which, yes, Microsoft does. But they've already been fined for this in US courts, where I might add MS is headquartered. Leveraging charges for it in the EU is outright silly just because they were found guilty already. I don't love MS but I don't hate them either. They're a company and shouldn't be subject to this legal sillyness any more than Apple.
I remember pre-Windows, who was the big bad monopoly? IBM. Big Blue. That's who 1984's famous little commercial was aimed at, not MS. Did a court case bring them out of that? Not particularly, just the rise of MS, Apple, and their kin made IBM refocus themselves and reorient what they did. And they did it successfully, and are still a good company. Look at Ford, they were a veritable monopoly for years; gave you the stunning choice of colors of black, black, and black, then competition took care of that. Too many people just want big-mommy courtsystem to go beat up MS for doing the following:
1.) Integrating good ideas (EVERYONE does it; its the whole point of competition)
2.) Making what it needs cheap (x86 hardware is cheap due to multitude of manufacturers)
3.) Marketing
4.) Easy

Does OS X beat it on, oh I'd say #4? Probably -- lots of people think OS X is easier than XP. But an Apple computer is expensive; their commercials are more about image (which is admitably very important) than why you would want one, and so forth.
If everyone wants to rant about Office and XP, make something better. And better doesn't mean 'easier' or any other single line item.
VHS beat Beta, remember? Why? Because the consumer is stupid? No. Because VHS could hold a lot more time on it. And remember, it has to be better, not as good. People won't change if they won't gain from the change -- and they have to see that gain as worth it.
"But won't I have to rebuy all my software?" "I already know Windows, I don't want to learn something new" "But Dell's are half that price" -- sound familiar?
Relying on the common-man to change for the sake of something being 'better' in some way they can't immediatly see is asking for trouble.
I might be wrong; but I bet the reason CDs overtook Cassettes is not the quality or anything like that -- its the fact that you can jump to any song you want at any time. People like that; they see the benifit.

Stolid

RHutch
Mar 24, 2004, 03:50 PM
It's not double jeopardy in the first place because of exactly what I said - "in the US" -- the EU is clearly not the US.
It doesn't MATTER if MS lost vs DOJ. Double Jeopardy is Double Jeopardy -- I sue you for breaking my arm and get $1 million. Then I sue you again for the exact same event and net another cool million. Rinse repeat. That's double jeopardy.
The EU is not the same as the US but the charges are basically the same -- the companies that brought the charges, IIRC, are US based companies. They went to the EU because the US already ruled on the MS monopoly.


But they've already been fined for this in US courts, where I might add MS is headquartered. Leveraging charges for it in the EU is outright silly just because they were found guilty already. I don't love MS but I don't hate them either. They're a company and shouldn't be subject to this legal sillyness any more than Apple.

Stolid

I don't think that you understand that these are different legal jurisdictions and that different laws were broken. It doesn't matter if the substance of the law was the same. A law in the EU is not the same law as one in the US, precisely because they are different jurisdictions.

If a company caused you some harm but someone else with the same harm in a different state sued them first, would you think it fair that you couldn't sue the company because they had already been sued for the same thing that they did to you?

Also, it doesn't matter if the companies are US-based. They are doing business in the EU and are bound by and protected by the laws of the EU.



Do schools teach civics and government anymore? :(

gwangung
Mar 24, 2004, 03:50 PM
It's not double jeopardy in the first place because of exactly what I said - "in the US" -- the EU is clearly not the US.
It doesn't MATTER if MS lost vs DOJ. Double Jeopardy is Double Jeopardy -- I sue you for breaking my arm and get $1 million. Then I sue you again for the exact same event and net another cool million. Rinse repeat. That's double jeopardy.
The EU is not the same as the US but the charges are basically the same -- the companies that brought the charges, IIRC, are US based companies. They went to the EU because the US already ruled on the MS monopoly.


Further, Monopolies are NOT illegal. Chances are your power provider is a monopoly, where is the competition for them? What about cable -- if you can't have a satillite and want more than broadcast how many cable providers do you have? Both of these are known 'regulated monopolies' -- there are other monopolies that are unregulated. What makes a monopoly illegal is strong-arming out competition. Which, yes, Microsoft does. But they've already been fined for this in US courts, where I might add MS is headquartered. Leveraging charges for it in the EU is outright silly just because they were found guilty already.

Um, are you reading what you wrote?

The EU is not the US. So...they are NOT the same charges. Moreover, the victims ARE NOT THE SAME. That's what makes the EU charges "non-silly." Different jurisdictions, different victims.

Steven1621
Mar 24, 2004, 04:00 PM
this is going to be in the courts for a very long time, so i wouldn't expect much to happen soon.

Stolid
Mar 24, 2004, 04:04 PM
I'm not saying that this is an instance of double jeopardy; I'm saying it reaks of the same substance of the idea. What the EU courts should have, IMHO, done is said "The US courts have already ruled on this" and passed the same ruling enforcement. While the laws may be different the purpose of them is the same -- and despite what you might see on TV there is the "essence of the law," which is basically to prevent loopholes from exact semantics in a law; I'm willing to bet (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the essence of the antitrust/monopoly laws in both locations is the same, and because of that the courts shouldn't disregard it.
I suppose the way to put it is this; lets just say that I'm guilty of a crime - murder lets say. I'm a resident of TownA and my victim was from VillaB.
TownA and VillaB both charge me for murder. TownA has a law that if you kill someone you have commited murder, whereas VillaB has a law that anyone who kills a member of VillaB has commited murder. So, despite the different jurisdictions and so forth, chances are one of the two locations would agree to let the ruling of the other location stand.
What I'm seeing here is that TownA (USA) has already convicted MS, and now VillaB (EU) is convicting them too. It may be legal, it may be a slap on the wrist, but the support of it disturbs me. If I do business internationally I now am open to 1 party suing me in every (or almost every) nation I do business in if I do something illegal. Should I avoid those acts anyway? Of course, but it means that an otherwise minor mistake or bad egg employee could easily blossom into quite the headache, far beyond the deserved amount.

RHutch
Mar 24, 2004, 04:18 PM
I'm not saying that this is an instance of double jeopardy; I'm saying it reaks of the same substance of the idea. What the EU courts should have, IMHO, done is said "The US courts have already ruled on this" and passed the same ruling enforcement. While the laws may be different the purpose of them is the same -- and despite what you might see on TV there is the "essence of the law," which is basically to prevent loopholes from exact semantics in a law; I'm willing to bet (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the essence of the antitrust/monopoly laws in both locations is the same, and because of that the courts shouldn't disregard it.
I suppose the way to put it is this; lets just say that I'm guilty of a crime - murder lets say. I'm a resident of TownA and my victim was from VillaB.
TownA and VillaB both charge me for murder. TownA has a law that if you kill someone you have commited murder, whereas VillaB has a law that anyone who kills a member of VillaB has commited murder. So, despite the different jurisdictions and so forth, chances are one of the two locations would agree to let the ruling of the other location stand.
What I'm seeing here is that TownA (USA) has already convicted MS, and now VillaB (EU) is convicting them too. It may be legal, it may be a slap on the wrist, but the support of it disturbs me. If I do business internationally I now am open to 1 party suing me in every (or almost every) nation I do business in if I do something illegal. Should I avoid those acts anyway? Of course, but it means that an otherwise minor mistake or bad egg employee could easily blossom into quite the headache, far beyond the deserved amount.
Your situation uses the same victim and the same crime. Compare your scenario with these two scenarios.

A) You kill a person from Town A and a person from Town B. You can and should be tried in both jurisdictions. (Same crime, different victims)

B) You kidnap and kill the same person from Town A. You can and should be tried for both crimes. (Different crimes, same victim)

The people of the EU and the people of the US and the companies of the US are all different victims, so they all have reason to want MS penalized.

Imagine this scenario. You sell tainted beef in the US, Canada, and Mexico. Should only one of those countries get to penalize you when all three have been harmed?

Yes, if you do business in every country, you should expect to be held liable for your mistakes in every country.


Do you really believe in what you are writing, or are you just trying to increase your post count? Or are you trying to help me increase my post count? :rolleyes:

ALoLA
Mar 24, 2004, 04:26 PM
Anything to penalize Microsoft is a good thing (even if it comes a few years too late). Those who think Microsoft got to where they're at legitimately are just deluding themselves. Someone with a better grasp of the computer/software industry history could probabaly cite examples. "Superior" and "Innovative" are not words associated with MS. "Unfair", "Insecure", "Deceptive", "Manipulative"....yeah, those I've seen associated with the Evil Empire. ;)

Stolid
Mar 24, 2004, 04:34 PM
Imagine this scenario. You sell tainted beef in the US, Canada, and Mexico. Should only one of those countries get to penalize you when all three have been harmed?

Yes, if you do business in every country, you should expect to be held liable for your mistakes in every country.


Do you really believe in what you are writing, or are you just trying to increase your post count? Or are you trying to help me increase my post count? :rolleyes:
No this isn't for post count, I honestly believe it and have a hard time you don't.
Should only one of those countries get to penalize you? No; all three should get together and settle the entirety in one sitting. This isn't a class action suit, this is antitrust. If the companies were suing Microsoft for money to them thats another story, but its not.
In fact; one of the major players in the EU case was Real.
Let's go to real.com shall we?
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
RealNetworks, Inc.
Seattle, WA
U.S.A.

... So; a US company charging crimes to a US company in the EU; you support this?
So if I sell that beef to Mex, Can, and US -- and I get some -- I can sue you 3 times?

eSnow
Mar 24, 2004, 04:42 PM
I'm not saying that this is an instance of double jeopardy; I'm saying it reaks of the same substance of the idea. What the EU courts should have, IMHO, done is said "The US courts have already ruled on this" and passed the same ruling enforcement.

MS was not tried for abusing its monopoly in the US but for abusing it over here. This clearly falls into the ruling of the EU antritrust agents for MS could have played fair here and foul in your country, but they did not.

vpalvarez
Mar 24, 2004, 05:04 PM
Will the stripped down Windows be a Europe only product r will they have to sell it here too

daveL
Mar 24, 2004, 05:05 PM
MS didnt start off as a monolopy. They had a aggressive business plan that others couldnt match. Take the some of the dumbass business decisions that apple made years age, and the slow rise of Linux, I say MS counldn't avoid being a monolopy.
I guess the fact that IBM dumped CPM and went solely with MS-DOS as the OS for the original PC had nothing to do with it, right? Of course, the fact that Billy Boy's parents were friends with executives at the highest level of IBM at the time all this happened didn't come into play either, right? This is the foundation on which their "aggressive business plan" was built. We should all be so lucky... I mean privileged (as in the privileged few).

Chris1127
Mar 24, 2004, 05:05 PM
No this isn't for post count, I honestly believe it and have a hard time you don't.
Should only one of those countries get to penalize you? No; all three should get together and settle the entirety in one sitting. This isn't a class action suit, this is antitrust. If the companies were suing Microsoft for money to them thats another story, but its not.

So let's say someone goes on a killing spree and murders people in three different states. Should tere be one trial with all three states prosecuting as one? No, because different states have different laws and different punishments for breaking those laws.

So should Microsoft be tried only once with the US, EU, and every other country and the prosecutors? No, because the laws and punishments in these countries/groupings vary. (Plus, it would probably be a logistical NIGHTMARE to get people from every country together at the same place at the same time. :rolleyes: )

vpalvarez
Mar 24, 2004, 05:07 PM
It is not double jeopardy for the same reason that Terry Nichols was sentenced to life in prison for the OKlahoma City bombing AS A FEDERAL OFFENSIVE and now he is being tried as a State crime. different jurisdictions

daveL
Mar 24, 2004, 05:12 PM
Microsoft Bob.
Bob who? I've been forced to use MS OSs since the beginning of time, and I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not saying you're making something up or anything, I'm just saying Bob must be a fairly transparent innovation or I missed something along the way (always possible).

Foxer
Mar 24, 2004, 05:17 PM
So let's say someone goes on a killing spree and murders people in three different states. Should tere be one trial with all three states prosecuting as one? No, because different states have different laws and different punishments for breaking those laws.

So should Microsoft be tried only once with the US, EU, and every other country and the prosecutors? No, because the laws and punishments in these countries/groupings vary. (Plus, it would probably be a logistical NIGHTMARE to get people from every country together at the same place at the same time. :rolleyes: )

Yes, but these charges arise from distinct acts committed in different states. Alabama isn't going to prosecute for a murder committed in Georgia.

These charges against Microsoft (and remember, there wasn't a trial in Europe, so the whole double jeopardy thing is not entirely appropriate) all stem from the same act.

I have significant philosophical problems with double jeopardy and dual jurisdictions (which is a situation fairly unique to the U.S.) I am not ordinarily a "rights of the accused" person, but it just seems wrong to me that someone can be found innocent by a jury in state court, only to have to face another jury in federal court for the same act. I thought it was wrong with the Rodney King cops, and I thought it was wrong when OJ was sued in civil court for wrongful death after the jury found him not guilty a few months before.

eric_n_dfw
Mar 24, 2004, 05:20 PM
Bob who? I've been forced to use MS OSs since the beginning of time, and I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not saying you're making something up or anything, I'm just saying Bob must be a fairly transparent innovation or I missed something along the way (always possible).http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+bob
http://toastytech.com/guis/bobboot1sm.gif

Foxer
Mar 24, 2004, 05:21 PM
Bob who? I've been forced to use MS OSs since the beginning of time, and I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not saying you're making something up or anything, I'm just saying Bob must be a fairly transparent innovation or I missed something along the way (always possible).

Well, you missed a classic. Microsoft Bob was the shortlived GUI that was pasted over Windows 3.1 in early 95. It was designed to look like a physical office, with a checkbook, an address book, etc. It came installed on a machine I bought and I found it fairly awful - of course I'd been messing around with Windows since 1989, so I didn't need to have it "dumbed down."

The only real legacy of the project was that damn paperclip that comes with Office. He got his start with Bob, but as a dog I think.

http://toastytech.com/guis/bob2.html

gwangung
Mar 24, 2004, 05:25 PM
No this isn't for post count, I honestly believe it and have a hard time you don't.
Should only one of those countries get to penalize you? No; all three should get together and settle the entirety in one sitting. This isn't a class action suit, this is antitrust. If the companies were suing Microsoft for money to them thats another story, but its not.
In fact; one of the major players in the EU case was Real.
Let's go to real.com shall we?
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
RealNetworks, Inc.
Seattle, WA
U.S.A.

... So; a US company charging crimes to a US company in the EU; you support this?
So if I sell that beef to Mex, Can, and US -- and I get some -- I can sue you 3 times?


You're still thinking of governments as one entities and that the laws are the same. They're not. You keep trying to treat them as the same thing when they're not. For starters, governments treat identical actions differently sometimes; then you HAVE to try separately. For seconds, you keep trying to lump all the victims into one group...in a criminal case you don't do that...you treat each action separately.

And, yes...companies HAVE been tried by different governments for their actions. That's one of the things about operating internationally; if you're not willing to accept that, then don't go multi-national.

gwangung
Mar 24, 2004, 05:28 PM
Yes, but these charges arise from distinct acts committed in different states. Alabama isn't going to prosecute for a murder committed in Georgia.

These charges against Microsoft (and remember, there wasn't a trial in Europe, so the whole double jeopardy thing is not entirely appropriate) all stem from the same act.

So European governments should not be seeking remedies for their citizens? Don't forget who this act was done to...American remedies do nothing for European citizens (nor should they be expect to).

Foxer
Mar 24, 2004, 05:37 PM
So European governments should not be seeking remedies for their citizens? Don't forget who this act was done to...American remedies do nothing for European citizens (nor should they be expect to).

No, no, no. I'm not saying that at all. Of course Europeans need a legal remedy. But then, so do the Japanese, the Chinese, the Kuwaitis, and on down the line. What if the EU decided to break-up Microsoft, as was proposed here? That would have gone over like a lead balloon in the U.S. Somewhere, it has to become unfair to Microsoft.

Devil's advocate: Country X is a very large market. They are also home to Software, Inc - a new company. They want to protect their fledgling industry. Currently, like almost everyone else, nearly all comuters in X use Microsoft products. Why can't Country X determine that Microsoft is engaging in unfair bundling practices and fine them some ridiculous sum of money? Hurts a foreign company who will either have to pay up, pass the fine along to customers in X via increased price for Windows, or leave a large, lucrative market. Either way, Software, Inc wins and Country X has helped it's own.

I'm not saying this will happen, but when every multi-national is subject to the whims of every regulatory body in the world....

Something has to be arranged (perhaps it already is) through a multinational body like the WTO to insure that everyone plays fair with everyone else's companies.

daveL
Mar 24, 2004, 05:45 PM
Well, you missed a classic. Microsoft Bob was the shortlived GUI that was pasted over Windows 3.1 in early 95. It was designed to look like a physical office, with a checkbook, an address book, etc. It came installed on a machine I bought and I found it fairly awful - of course I'd been messing around with Windows since 1989, so I didn't need to have it "dumbed down."

The only real legacy of the project was that damn paperclip that comes with Office. He got his start with Bob, but as a dog I think.

http://toastytech.com/guis/bob2.html
Thanks, Foxer. Obviously, I never used it, but now that you've jogged my memory, I do vaguely recall reading about it.

Is something an innovation if it ends up being short-lived and thrown in the rubbish bin? Maybe I should qualify my original statement: MS has never SUCCESSFULLY innovated anything. :)

eSnow
Mar 24, 2004, 05:53 PM
Yes, but these charges arise from distinct acts committed in different states. Alabama isn't going to prosecute for a murder committed in Georgia.

These charges against Microsoft (and remember, there wasn't a trial in Europe, so the whole double jeopardy thing is not entirely appropriate) all stem from the same act.

Nope, the EU investigation was about marketshare in the EU .

RHutch
Mar 24, 2004, 06:00 PM
Yes, but these charges arise from distinct acts committed in different states. Alabama isn't going to prosecute for a murder committed in Georgia.

These charges against Microsoft (and remember, there wasn't a trial in Europe, so the whole double jeopardy thing is not entirely appropriate) all stem from the same act.

I have significant philosophical problems with double jeopardy and dual jurisdictions (which is a situation fairly unique to the U.S.) I am not ordinarily a "rights of the accused" person, but it just seems wrong to me that someone can be found innocent by a jury in state court, only to have to face another jury in federal court for the same act. I thought it was wrong with the Rodney King cops, and I thought it was wrong when OJ was sued in civil court for wrongful death after the jury found him not guilty a few months before.
There is a difference in the charges and in the standards of proof for criminal actions and civil actions. If even one person refuses to convict--1 out of 12--the person is not found guilty in a criminal case. In a civil suit, it needs to be a simple majority. And there is also a difference between "reasonable doubt" and a preponderance of the evidence.

I am a mathematician, but I feel like a social studies teacher today. I can't believe the number of people who either don't know this stuff, don't understand it, or who are so closed-minded to think that the only court proceedings and punishments that matter are those that happen in the US.

Bulgroz
Mar 24, 2004, 06:04 PM
XP's fast user switching comes to mind.

Maybe not an "invention" so-to-speak, but I was sure happy with OS X got it last summer. The best part of 10.3 as far as I'm concerned.


There was something similar to fast user switching on Linux many years ago (at least 5 years).

daveL
Mar 24, 2004, 06:16 PM
There was something similar to fast user switching on Linux many years ago (at least 5 years).
If you are willing to consider equivalent CLI functionality, fast user switching predates all Apple and Windows OSs. The earliest versions of Unix had the 'su' command, which allowed you to change to any user id, as long as you knew the password. If you were 'root', you didn't even have to supply the password.

ACED
Mar 24, 2004, 06:21 PM
Haven't consumers always had a choice to buy a Mac instead? Of course they have!

People want convenience and the least hassle, which is why MS users pay pay MS's price... just as Mac users pay Apple's price.

If a feeling got around the 98% of computer users that they were not getting fair value for their money, they would have started to flock to Apple as their saviour, but they just don't. People don't want to have to have to decide which browser/media player/OS is 'better' or 'nicer'...they don't care! What the hell is wrong with integration? Can't MS users run alternate OS/media players?

They believe that having a total MS 'solution' is more likely to give them the function, reliablitity, and accountability expected from computers in this age...and whether anyone wants to admit it or not, XP has provided people with acceptable reliability and its done wonders for MS's reputation.

This smell like a tax on success, with the lawyers and the EU the winners...sure as hell I bet MS customers won't see any of the fine being directed to them!

Isn't Apple a monopoly to us MAC users, didn't they kill off their own clone competition when it started to take off? Aren't they promoting an integrated, non MS 'solution'? of course, and why not! it's better for Mac users for the same reason integration is better for MS users.

Isn't the EU or any government just another monopoly, with a price to be paid for its 'service'? Its all BS! Maybe MS need to buy a group of islands, and become a government itself and tell the EU to go dis-integrate!

Bulgroz
Mar 24, 2004, 06:30 PM
If you are willing to consider equivalent CLI functionality, fast user switching predates all Apple and Windows OSs. The earliest versions of Unix had the 'su' command, which allowed you to change to any user id, as long as you knew the password. If you were 'root', you didn't even have to supply the password.

It was possible to switch between multiple "screens" (with F1, F2, etc.). Each "screen" being a shell in which it was possible to run a X-Window session. I suppose other versions of Unix had the same kind of functionality.

manu chao
Mar 24, 2004, 06:31 PM
I have not read all the messages, but...

Does everybody know why all browsers on the Mac except for Safari (and probably Omniweb), in essence all Mozilla products plus Opera, iCab (and in principle Explorer) still use Java 1.3 and not Java 1.4?

Because Java 1.4 in OS X is implemented in Cocoa with basically no documentation about the interface, which makes it very very difficult to integrate it into Carbon-based browsers (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=197813).

Java 1.4 in OS X was released over a year ago.

manu chao
Mar 24, 2004, 06:35 PM
Haven't consumers always had a choice to buy a Mac instead? Of course they have!

People want convenience and the least hassle, which is why MS users pay pay MS's price... just as Mac users pay Apple's price.

If a feeling got around the 98% of computer users that they were not getting fair value for their money, they would have started to flock to Apple as their saviour, but they just don't. People don't want to have to have to decide which browser/media player/OS is 'better' or 'nicer'...they don't care! What the hell is wrong with integration? Can't MS users run alternate OS/media players?

They believe that having a total MS 'solution' is more likely to give them the function, reliablitity, and accountability expected from computers in this age...and whether anyone wants to admit it or not, XP has provided people with acceptable reliability and its done wonders for MS's reputation.

This smell like a tax on success, with the lawyers and the EU the winners...sure as hell I bet MS customers won't see any of the fine being directed to them!

Isn't Apple a monopoly to us MAC users, didn't they kill off their own clone competition when it started to take off? Aren't they promoting an integrated, non MS 'solution'? of course, and why not! it's better for Mac users for the same reason integration is better for MS users.

Isn't the EU or any government just another monopoly, with a price to be paid for its 'service'? Its all BS! Maybe MS need to buy a group of islands, and become a government itself and tell the EU to go dis-integrate!

Here comes the free-wheeling U.S.-American. Let everybody do whatever they want and don't let anybody interfere using such concepts as fairness.

daveL
Mar 24, 2004, 06:41 PM
It was possible to switch between multiple "screens" (with F1, F2, etc.). Each "screen" being a shell in which it was possible to run a X-Window session. I suppose other versions of Unix had the same kind of functionality.
Yes, they were called virtual terminals, but they didn't come along until the mid-80's, if I recall. The 'su' command existed in the earliest versions of Unix at Bell Labs.

ACED
Mar 24, 2004, 06:52 PM
Here comes the free-wheeling U.S.-American. Let everybody do whatever they want and don't let anybody interfere using such concepts as fairness.

I'm an Australian willing to acknowledge the success of any great enterprise... and yes, gladly American companies like MS, Apple, Dell, IBM, Intel, Motorola, GM, Ford, etc. doesn't make any difference to me.

question your own 'fairness'...

daveL
Mar 24, 2004, 06:56 PM
Haven't consumers always had a choice to buy a Mac instead? Of course they have!

People want convenience and the least hassle, which is why MS users pay pay MS's price... just as Mac users pay Apple's price.

If a feeling got around the 98% of computer users that they were not getting fair value for their money, they would have started to flock to Apple as their saviour, but they just don't. People don't want to have to have to decide which browser/media player/OS is 'better' or 'nicer'...they don't care! What the hell is wrong with integration? Can't MS users run alternate OS/media players?

They believe that having a total MS 'solution' is more likely to give them the function, reliablitity, and accountability expected from computers in this age...and whether anyone wants to admit it or not, XP has provided people with acceptable reliability and its done wonders for MS's reputation.

This smell like a tax on success, with the lawyers and the EU the winners...sure as hell I bet MS customers won't see any of the fine being directed to them!

Isn't Apple a monopoly to us MAC users, didn't they kill off their own clone competition when it started to take off? Aren't they promoting an integrated, non MS 'solution'? of course, and why not! it's better for Mac users for the same reason integration is better for MS users.

Isn't the EU or any government just another monopoly, with a price to be paid for its 'service'? Its all BS! Maybe MS need to buy a group of islands, and become a government itself and tell the EU to go dis-integrate!
Man, I don't want to live in your world. I don't think you fully realize the implications of what you're saying. MS enjoys economies of scale that no other company can possibly attain and, therefore, is in a position to drive *any* competitor out of business. That's what a monopoly is. Everyone always laments the high prices Apple charges vs Wintel boxes, but how can Apple possibly compete purely on price? Dell buys 30 times as many system components (disks, video cards, etc.) as Apple. Who do think gets the best price *and* priority on availability, i.e. Dell get theirs first?

Pure and simple: the masses buy based on price, period, end of subject. Quality has very little to do with it. WalMart: US$260 B. Nuf said.

amnesiac1984
Mar 24, 2004, 07:08 PM
hey guys, i'm a little confused on why they have to reveal there code and what the point of that is?

is it so other operating systems can copy what windows is doing?

is os x code available? not to knowledgeable on this so i was curious

It's so that Microsoft's competitors can make software run as "well" as microsoft software does under windows. Microsoft takes advantage of their own secrets to make their apps "better" and to quash competition.

ACED
Mar 24, 2004, 07:15 PM
Man, I don't want to live in your world. I don't think you fully realize the implications of what you're saying. MS enjoys economies of scale that no other company can possibly attain and, therefore, is in a position to drive *any* competitor out of business. That's what a monopoly is. Everyone always laments the high prices Apple charges vs Wintel boxes, but how can Apple possibly compete purely on price? Dell buys 30 times as many system components (disks, video cards, etc.) as Apple. Who do think gets the best price *and* priority on availability, i.e. Dell get theirs first?

Pure and simple: the masses buy based on price, period, end of subject. Quality has very little to do with it. WalMart: US$260 B. Nuf said.

What a self-defeatist whinge...how much longer as Apple been around than Dell?...lets all feel sorry for companies who don't know how to compete. Dell, MS, Apple all started the same way, extremely small, even 'micro'.

Whilst MS's asset are massive, the assets of the world are vastly more massive. I'm sick of all the excuses put forth by the poor losers...why they can't compete.

Surely the combined assets of the losers could band together to give MS a real run for the money it asks people to pay for its particular products... but no, I'm sure there are many more reason losers can find why they couldn't do this...they're chicken!

daveL
Mar 24, 2004, 07:20 PM
What a self-defeatist whinge...how much longer as Apple been around than Dell?...lets all feel sorry for companies who don't know how to compete. Dell, MS, Apple all started the same way, extremely small, even 'micro'.

Whilst MS's asset are massive, the assets of the world are vastly more massive. I'm sick of all the excuses put forth by the poor losers...why they can't compete.

Surely the combined assets of the losers could band together to give MS a real run for the money it asks people to pay for its particular products... but no, I'm sure there are many more reason losers can find why they couldn't do this...they're chicken!
Whatever.

Bulgroz
Mar 24, 2004, 07:31 PM
Yes, they were called virtual terminals, but they didn't come along until the mid-80's, if I recall. The 'su' command existed in the earliest versions of Unix at Bell Labs.

I just wanted to show that Fast user switching existed a long time before Windows XP and that it wasn't an innovation of M$. They only made it look better. (And then Apple made it much better…)

daveL
Mar 24, 2004, 07:36 PM
I just wanted to show that Fast user switching existed a long time before Windows XP and that it wasn't an innovation of M$. They only made it look better. (And then Apple made it much better…)
Obviously, I agree with you.:)

windowsblowsass
Mar 24, 2004, 07:52 PM
yep I read about it, but the fine is a big part of it... they should have been hit much, much harder in that respect, if they thought they were going to receive multi-billion $ fines everytime they took the pi$$, they'd soon realise.

What the EU should demand, is that the removal MediaPlayer happens now... and only allow Microsoft to appeal the fine amount, otherwise Microsoft will not be affected in anyway at all, because the process of appeal will drag on for years and years.

But like the pat on the back Microsoft received from the U.S. Courts a couple of years ago, this doesn't go anyway near far enough, MS only will have to offer the alternative OS to PC makers, in which case, do we really believe that companies like Dell etc are going to provide a stripped down OS over the fully functioning one?? I think not...

It's about time authorities realised that Microsoft is NEVER going to change it's unethical approach, and that something really needs to be done... NOW, before we're all f**kin' doomed to it's unsecure, second rate, retro-innovative products.
i agree a couple days interest and thats it and all they have to do is make a versionw/o wm available it doesnt mean itll chang e anything

windowsblowsass
Mar 24, 2004, 08:03 PM
Well, you missed a classic. Microsoft Bob was the shortlived GUI that was pasted over Windows 3.1 in early 95. It was designed to look like a physical office, with a checkbook, an address book, etc. It came installed on a machine I bought and I found it fairly awful - of course I'd been messing around with Windows since 1989, so I didn't need to have it "dumbed down."

The only real legacy of the project was that damn paperclip that comes with Office. He got his start with Bob, but as a dog I think.

http://toastytech.com/guis/bob2.html
the only good paper clip is a dead one to see this check ot windowsRG heres a demo http://www.deanliou.com/WinRG/WinRG.htm

joeconvert
Mar 24, 2004, 08:43 PM
Dare I say that at least over here Microsoft will not get away with donating 500 million worth of PeeCees to some schools like in the USofA. It is going to be cold hard cash yippppiieeeeee ! I want to see a copy of that cheque being published PLEEEEEEEEASE.

Of which they have over $40 Billion (US).


No big impact to them. However, I do not condone what would be in effect the "nationalization" of a company's product. If they hate MS so much forbide them from doing business in Europe. Then we will see just how robust the EU economies really are.

MacDav
Mar 24, 2004, 08:55 PM
why do you all think microsoft is this big evil company? let's be honest people, they've made a lot of good innovations in technology. if we didn't have one main os in the market, not as many people would be using a computer. your average person doesn't want to have to learn another os. i use my ibook for portable things and my pc for my home so i'm not partial to either format. both have their advantages. i do think that if microsoft didn't try to include things such as a media player people would have no idea how to play files. my mom could sit down and if a sound file didn't open up she'd have no idea how to fix that. people want an os that will work. i think the same thing can be said for apple too. why does it come with ilife and quicktime? honestly, if you took ms out of the picture what os would take over? the average person buying a $499 computer system from dell can't afford a $2000 system from apple. is linux a viable option? not at all. it seems the governments are going after microsoft while the normal computer user doesn't care. No one is saying Microsoft can't include IE and Wimp. They're saying they can't make Applications part of the Operating System. You can throw Quicktime player or Safari in the trash and get rid of them if you want to. You can't throw IE
or Wimp in the trash the O/S won't let you. All they want is for MS to make Applications, Applications and not part of the Operating System.

eric_n_dfw
Mar 24, 2004, 09:12 PM
I just wanted to show that Fast user switching existed a long time before Windows XP and that it wasn't an innovation of M$. They only made it look better. (And then Apple made it much better…)
Actually, I think that XP and OS X's implementations are far superior to what Linux/Unix offered beforehand. Both OS's offer it in a secure manner, where as, on Linux, you basically can access any desktop that is logged in via the alt-<FKey> combo. I don't really consider it the same thing. (My Linux experience is limited to RedHat, so forgive me if another distro offers it - I don't think RedHat's 5-9 do, nor does Solaris 8 or 9 AFAIK)

And, yes, I know that Unix has had the ability to su for ever (I've been a Unix user since about 1989 or so). Unix is a true Multi-User OS, something windows only dreams about being (like the joke that is Windows Terminal Server!) - which is the reason for a lot of their security woes, I do believe.

bumfilter
Mar 24, 2004, 09:16 PM
Useless but relevant tip:

It will take Microsoft (Global) about 2 weeks in order to make enough profit to pay the fine.

How mental is that?! That's like $500 a second! Microsoft probably laughed themselves to sleep when they got the fine.

digitalbiker
Mar 24, 2004, 09:26 PM
So other than a temporary loss of sales, what would stop microsoft from refusing to release windows in Europe. Eventually people would be so pissed off that they couldn't upgrade their OS's or download patches and service packs that the people and business would yell loudly at the courts forcing them to re-evaluate the rulings.

I am an Apple user and dislike Microsoft's tendancy toward world domination but I still think these rulings are dumb. There is nothing stoping a user from using alternative web browsers, movie players, etc. Just because IE is included free doesn't mean you have to use it. If Mozilla continued to innovate and built a better, faster browser, people would buy it. Just like people still buy Roxio Toast even though cd burning is included in iTunes.

vpalvarez
Mar 24, 2004, 09:41 PM
I love the bit : "Microsoft claims that it should not be fined at all because it did not know its behaviour would breach EU law. "

The day Ignorance of any law is considered suitable defence is the day the foundation of Justice is destroyed.


Half a billion bucks does sound juicy enough to make me smile.

Their stocks have already lost $1 in the past week, so I'm curious to see how the market reacts. (Not that the news wasn't expected)

You'd think that the high priced lawyers at the world's top software manufacturer would have know that their company was breaking the law. I guess that aside from the executives MS's lawyers are also mindless nitwits

vpalvarez
Mar 24, 2004, 09:46 PM
So other than a temporary loss of sales, what would stop microsoft from refusing to release windows in Europe. Eventually people would be so pissed off that they couldn't upgrade their OS's or download patches and service packs that the people and business would yell loudly at the courts forcing them to re-evaluate the rulings..
With Business practices like that they would be sued by Consumers (no doubt it would be the biggest class action suit ever), retailers, the EU and individual countries that use Windows (they would be unable to upgrade), and individual companies. The EU would not re-evaluate the ruling they would just increase the fine


I am an Apple user and dislike Microsoft's tendancy toward world domination but I still think these rulings are dumb. There is nothing stoping a user from using alternative web browsers, movie players, etc. Just because IE is included free doesn't mean you have to use it. If Mozilla continued to innovate and built a better, faster browser, people would buy it. Just like people still buy Roxio Toast even though cd burning is included in iTunes.

People are less likely to buy other brands, and that has adamagine effect on the sales of the third party developers

digitalbiker
Mar 24, 2004, 10:20 PM
With Business practices like that they would be sued by Consumers (no doubt it would be the biggest class action suit ever), retailers, the EU and individual countries that use Windows (they would be unable to upgrade)

On what grounds can someone sue just because a business decides to no longer support or sale a product! Microsoft is not obligated to support windows or improve their product forever.

Since the courts in that area are hostile to Microsoft, I believe they have every right to refuse service to that area. After all, Microsoft isn't a real monopoly. There are many alternatives. In fact, I am using OSX on an Apple PowerBook replying in Safari. At work I use a linux box that runs propriatary software for my business. I get by as do millions of others without Microsoft.

I am not trying to argue for Microsoft. I just don't think courts should be trying to interfere with a perfectly well functioning free market place of Software and hardware. Eventually people will choose to buy and use other products that are not made by Microsoft. New devices are coming out everyday, the landscape changes fast, today microsoft is on top but who will be the next big player and what device will it be.

geffde
Mar 24, 2004, 10:53 PM
Kind of dangerous for a n00b to be defending Microsoft on a forum title "macrumors" and I hope that I am spared the visceral "Microsoft-is-the-spawn-of-the-Devil-must-kill-bill-(gates)" reaction.

I have yet to meet a programmer, including within MS, who believes Windows wouldn't work with IE or Media Player removed.


This is most likely true. For example, it is completely impossible for you to uninstall IE or Media Player in any Windows edition since 2000 short of finding all the memory addresses either application is stored in on the hard drive and manually scratching them out. I know that because I spent about a week trying every possible way. And even though Microsoft is known for providing shoddy programming to the masses, they aren't so stupid as to allow technology-challenged (or even technical adepts) to completely muck up their software. Most of the time...

However, Apple has bundled QuickTime and OS X together (<a href="http://developer.apple.com/macosx/architecture/">as evidence by a wonderfully rendered "aqua-licious" image on Apple's site</a>) so tightly that QuickTime integrated directly into the system architecture. You can't uninstall QuickTime from OS X, but I don't see people crying foul over this. I am sure to get flak about how its <em>so</em> different, but in reality it isn't. I'm on a 1.25 GHz PowerBook G4 running 10.3.3 and I have QuickTime, RealMedia Player and Windows Media Player (but only because nothing else supports the .wma or .wmv codecs. Honest!) and all run well, just like QuickTime, RealMedia Player and Windows Media Player work fine on Windows machines.

On an endnote that is sure to get me brownie points...there isn't an analogous situation between IE and Safari AND I personally believe that Microsoft should be dismantled piecemeal like Standard Oil and Bell Telephone were back in the day when governments weren't afraid to confront big business (but I think that has a lot to do with the current head honcho of the US...)

applebum
Mar 24, 2004, 11:05 PM
Wow this really sucks that I am defending MS here.

Microsoft created a better alternative to the Netscape product. When IE took off in popularity Netscape was horrible, hands down. MS provided a free and functioning alternative. They took away Netscape's market, actually they showed that there was no need for NS to bother selling thier product anymore, it was crap, and there already free alternatives (other than IE). This is also the same time Software like BeOS was hitting the street with with integrated browser, and every other OS vendor was starting to follow suit. MS was following the market. It wasn't until IE5 that MS began to merge/share code with the file explorer. At the time IE was easily the best functioning browser, integrated or not.

For all of Window's pitfalls, I don't see how removing IE makes it a better product for consumers.

Ok - I couldn't hold back anymore - someone may have posted this already, if so I apologize for the repeat. One little thing has been forgotten about the Netscape case. Netscape was number one. MS decided they wanted to be number one, so they created IE. Then they began to bundle IE with Windows. Netscape was still number one. Then MS took their 95% market share and told vendors "hey, if you put NS on the desktop, we aren't going to let you use Windows anymore. With 95% of the market, the vendors couldn't afford to go against MS. So they stopped putting NS on the desktop. People stopped using NS since it wasn't right there and began using IE. If it is right there, people will use it. Eventually IE became the better browser. But look at the money differences in the 2 companies. This was the heart of the anti-trust case here in the US. If MS made such a better browser, why did they have to play unfairly. This is what made them a monopoly - using their marketshare to "blackmail" other companies.

RHutch
Mar 24, 2004, 11:27 PM
However, Apple has bundled QuickTime and OS X together (<a href="http://developer.apple.com/macosx/architecture/">as evidence by a wonderfully rendered "aqua-licious" image on Apple's site</a>) so tightly that QuickTime integrated directly into the system architecture. You can't uninstall QuickTime from OS X, but I don't see people crying foul over this. I am sure to get flak about how its <em>so</em> different, but in reality it isn't. I'm on a 1.25 GHz PowerBook G4 running 10.3.3 and I have QuickTime, RealMedia Player and Windows Media Player (but only because nothing else supports the .wma or .wmv codecs. Honest!) and all run well, just like QuickTime, RealMedia Player and Windows Media Player work fine on Windows machines.

On an endnote that is sure to get me brownie points...there isn't an analogous situation between IE and Safari AND I personally believe that Microsoft should be dismantled piecemeal like Standard Oil and Bell Telephone were back in the day when governments weren't afraid to confront big business (but I think that has a lot to do with the current head honcho of the US...)

Who cares about uninstalling QuickTime? This is not the same thing as Windows Media Player. You think that you are comparing like things, but you are not. QuickTime is not the same as QuickTime Player. You might not be able to remove QuickTime from your Mac without causing problems (if you can remove it at all), but you can remove QuickTime Player without causing any problems.

As for the graphic that you referred to, scroll over the QuickTime box on that page and you will see from the text that appears that what is being referred to is the QuickTime "technology", not the QuickTime Player application. The technology is a part of the OS; the application is not.

digitalbiker
Mar 24, 2004, 11:52 PM
Who cares about uninstalling QuickTime?

While I agree that comparing Quicktime technology and Media Player are like comparing Apples and oranges, my point is who cares about unistalling anything.

Just because software resides on your computer doesn't mean you have to use it or that it excludes using other software.

Apple is just as guilty of including software with the computer purchase or OS purchase as Microsoft. Sure you can remove iTunes or iPhoto and install Roxio toast or Photoshop lite. But how is this much different than installing Nero or Photoshop lite on Windows and just using those apps instead of the OS bundled apps. People still have the choice.

I agree that it makes it more difficult for a windows software developer to make a good web browser program to compete but the freely included iphoto that comes pre-installed on a Mac makes it equally difficult for Apple developers to develop a photo organizing and publishing package.

It all boils down to innovation! If a software developer provides a unique piece of software that does something different and everybody needs that edge, that piece of software will sell. Eventually it will become outdated and possibly lose out to other packages but by then a new innovation will be making the money.

The computer industry is one of the fastest mutating landscapes in history. I am sure that in 10 to 20 years things will look a lot different. I remember in 1984 when the biggest selling consumer computer was the Commodore 64. I had a whopping 300 baud modem and began using compuserve which was a new service. So you tell me who and what will be on top in 2024!

Supa_Fly
Mar 25, 2004, 01:01 AM
{Nelson voice} [pointing] ----> Ha-ha! ROFLMAO!!!

all I can say is IT'S ABOUT FREEKIN TIME!!! Was wondering whom had to balls to put it to M$< (that less than sign is intentional for its loosing this battle).


Microsoft has accused the EU of going too far in seeking a record fine for alleged antitrust abuses, saying it is being penalized for behavior permitted in the United States and did not realize it was acting illegally in Europe.

Now that is funny coming from a company supposedly run by adults. Sounds like my 5 yrs old son whining that hey my sister gets to this so why can't I??!

Was watching CNN Headline news early eastern standard time with the interview with their spokesman chin up high acting confident for investers. Lets just hope that the USA Justice Department will have the balls next time around.

trilogic
Mar 25, 2004, 01:07 AM
Just because software resides on your computer doesn't mean you have to use it or that it excludes using other software.

Yes, but the majority of people just use what is preinstalled. I don't know many pc users, that install a second browser. why should they, IE does the job just perfect.

Apple is just as guilty of including software with the computer purchase or OS purchase as Microsoft. Sure you can remove iTunes or iPhoto and install Roxio toast or Photoshop lite. But how is this much different than installing Nero or Photoshop lite on Windows and just using those apps instead of the OS bundled apps. People still have the choice.

I agree that Apple is including software with their computers. but as long as apple hasn't got >95% market share, it just doesn't matter.

microsoft has a monopoly and they use this position to get bigger and enter new markets. I'm pretty sure that most other companies (including apple) would try to do so in a similar way. otherwise a company wouldn't get so powerfull and big.

groovebuster
Mar 25, 2004, 01:12 AM
I might be wrong; but I bet the reason CDs overtook Cassettes is not the quality or anything like that -- its the fact that you can jump to any song you want at any time. People like that; they see the benifit.

By the way... the CD overtook the vinyl record in first place, not the cassette. And that was because of many things. Sound, longevity, size, etc...pp...

And today the main reasons why everybody is burning CD-Rs instead of using tapes are:

1. It is a 1:1 copy with no sound loss.
2. It is compatible with any CD-Player (and everybody has one these days)
3. It is CHEAP!!! (50 cents for a CD-R)
4. Copies are made very fast and not in real-time...
5. There is no sound loss over the time by using it often

To jump back and forth on the media is maybe convenient, but I don't know a lot of people who would see that as the main benefit of using CD-Rs. Normally you put it in and you listen to it in one piece...

groovebuster

Foocha
Mar 25, 2004, 01:48 AM
In the (inconceivable) event that Microsoft were to pull out of Europe, it would force Europeans to explore other options (which they already have been doing to a limited extent - take the city of Munich's adoption of Linux).

Microsoft's whole strategy is based upon them being a desktop monopoly in enterprise. The reason big organisations don't switch from the No.1 is because the associated costs, hassle and risk of migration. However, left with no choice, they would migrate.

Over time Europe would prove the case for the Linux desktop. And organisations with Linux desktops would also use Linux servers. Microsoft's worldwide share of the desktop would start dropping for the first time in history. You could expect them to lose up to 20% market share to Linux.

As many global enterprises are based in Europe, if their European divisions/headquarters were forced to migrate from Microsoft, this would very likely precipitate an organisation-wide migration. Hence, Microsoft would lose a further 20% market share.

This leaves them with a 55% market share, and a monopoly lost forever. But is does not stop there. Remember that the reason enterprise customers don't want to migrate from Microsoft is because of the costs, hassle & risk of migration. Once such a large number of big enterprises have made the switch, any teathing problems will have been ironed out, the case for lower cost of ownership in Linux will have (probably) finally been made, leaving only the hassle factor, which would be managable. So you could expect the remaining 55% market share to also steadily be eroded.

In summary, Microsoft needs Europe more than Europe needs Microsoft.

Supa_Fly
Mar 25, 2004, 01:58 AM
To jump back and forth on the media is maybe convenient, but I don't know a lot of people who would see that as the main benefit of using CD-Rs. Normally you put it in and you listen to it in one piece...

groovebuster

Groovebuster, That last point about jumping back & forth is the MAIN reason why I loved CD. Back in late 86 was amongst the first to have one-no hip hop available then. Remember 8-Tracks; that back & forth thing was sweet. tapes like the DCC from Kenwood tried to have that functionality but having a tape being eaten by the deck was a serious pain.

Foocha, great insight. hoping that this decision takes affect immediately.

edenwaith
Mar 25, 2004, 02:00 AM
QuickTime, RealMedia Player and Windows Media Player (but only because nothing else supports the .wma or .wmv codecs. Honest!)

Check out VLC (VideoLAN Client). This program has run both wmv and wma files for me...sometimes even better than WMP. It still is in developmental stages (not a 1.0 release, yet), but it is still a nice FREE app, and alternative to WMP.

Why I think what is happening here is important is that somebody is at least trying to prevent history repeating itself. IE nudged out Netscape, and now that Netscape is pretty much out of the picture, IE has stagnated and has not even kept up with the times. This creates a HUGE pain for web designers who are trying to create fresh content, and extend the capabilities of web browsers, but find themselves hindered by IE 6. This is a prime example where MS has been a danger to the computing society. Not only do Microsoft and innovation never go together, by having such a dominating presence in several fields, they are actually stifling innovation! So what am I going to do with my great looking web page? Settle with least common denominator? Create a whole separate site just for "older" browsers like IE 5 & 6 now? Microsoft only worked hard enough to destroy its competition and then it stopped caring. Apple is continually having to innovate its butt off just to survive. I believe the same goes for smaller companies. They need to make as great a product as possible to be successful. They actually have to rely on *gasp* ... quality! So, to prevent WMP from completely pushing out Real and QuickTime, the same problems need to be avoided.

Has M$ learned anything from its history? Apparently not. As others have mentioned, what happens if you do not effectively punish a disobedient child? You get a child who does not learn from his/her mistakes...and perhaps considers and thinks about things in the future.

macguymike
Mar 25, 2004, 02:03 AM
The EU is already looking into charges from Microsoft competitors that its latest desktop operating system, Windows XP, is designed to help extend Microsoft's dominance into new markets such as instant messaging and mobile phones.

Funny. Kinda sounds like OS X. :eek: :D

Trimix
Mar 25, 2004, 02:45 AM
I'm an Australian willing to acknowledge the success of any great enterprise... and yes, gladly American companies like MS, Apple, Dell, IBM, Intel, Motorola, GM, Ford, etc. doesn't make any difference to me.

question your own 'fairness'...

GM, a perfect example :D

Trimix
Mar 25, 2004, 02:56 AM
Of which they have over $40 Billion (US).


No big impact to them. However, I do not condone what would be in effect the "nationalization" of a company's product. If they hate MS so much forbide them from doing business in Europe. Then we will see just how robust the EU economies really are.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, EU economies would flounder without Microsoft coming to their rescue - showing them how real American enterprise save them from sliding back into the Middle Ages. Without American industrial leadership Europe would surely drown in a morass of mediocrity. Do you think America invented democracy too ?

eSnow
Mar 25, 2004, 04:40 AM
So other than a temporary loss of sales, what would stop microsoft from refusing to release windows in Europe.

The EU will soon have 500Mio inhabitants, the worlds economies #3-7 (I believe) are part of it. 25% of international gross domestic product are created here (US: just short of 20%). MS may lose something like 30 - 40% of its revenue _at once_. Just for childishly refusing to abide by the rules of the market they are trying to sell to and trying to prove that US companies are above laws other than US law?

Yeah, right :rolleyes:

Zaty
Mar 25, 2004, 05:32 AM
I would like to comment on the integration of IE into the OS. Some people have alreday partially pointed out what I'm going to say in plain English:

IE (since Windows 98 and IE4) is just some sort of extension for Windows Explorer to display html files. Don't believe it? See for yourself: Open Windows Explorer (not IE!) and make sure that address field is visible (it's off by default) and type any url into that field. What happens? Explorer turns itself mysteriously into IE! That's why I'm sure you can remove this extension. Explorer would just lose its capability of displaying html files.

Foocha
Mar 25, 2004, 06:03 AM
Explorer turns itself mysteriously into IE!
I suspect that we are very likely to see a similar trick in a future version of Mac OS X, where a Finder window can switch to becoming a Safari, iTunes or iPhoto window depending on the resource that it is displaying. This is surely why the UI of these apps is converging.

For example, point Finder at your photos folder and it autmatically switches to iPhoto. Point it at the Web and it automatically becomes Safari.

There's nothing wrong with this type of functionality, provided your structured it in such a way that it's modular, so that, for example, Web Core could be swapped out for an alternative rendering engine.

Waragainstsleep
Mar 25, 2004, 07:05 AM
This thread seems to have alot of people repeating themselves, repeating each other and missing the same points over and over (and I only bothered to read the first 4 pages).

First, M$ lost their US case, their "punishment" was being awarded a greater share of the US education market, and being allowed to pay their fine with equipment worth a measly fraction of what the fine was supposed to. This most likely a case of doing the right people the right favours. This is why we hate them. This is not playing fair.

The only reason M$ became a monpoly is from (basically) a single business deal, and the continued stupidity of other people (IBM first, then Apple...I'm sure the list goes on.)
As for innovation etc, recall that the product which put them where they are is DOS. Which they bought from someone else (Who'd be in the above list between IBM and Apple if I knew his/their name(s)).
Purely an opportunistic business deal. I don't doubt that Bill knows his way around a computer, but that's not why he's so rich.

On the integration issue: IE and WMP can be removed (I think they had planned to further integrate in the next version of Windows), but not easily removed (in the case of the brain-dead (for legal reasons) consumer) or cheaply removed (in the case of a network administrator - he finishes updating the OS on 500+ machines, then has to go through them all again removing bits, and these guys don't work cheap, and there's downtime to consider).
M$ claimed that they couldn't remove it easily (It's not us claiming that you can't remove it), to try and avoid punishment from the EU.
The people more affected by this are the PC vendors, who while they're stuck with windows, should be allowed to install their choice of media player and/or web browser. HP have just struck a deal with Apple to produce their own iPod, presumably they'll want to ship iTunes with at least some of their consumer PCs (or Apple will want them to anyway).
M$ would like to stop such deals taking place. When they can't compete or don't get their own way, they throw money at the problem until it goes away. (Not difficult in the US if the media is to be believed).

As for "what if Apple had a monopoly?" Would they be as bad? I think not.
If Apple were motivated purely by greed, they would have ditched the idea of selling hardware, and released OS X for use on x86 machines (Its UNIX, remember).
With the current unrest growing among windows users about all the virus attacks and hackers, they could worry M$ at the very least. They would probably make more cash than they do now from it.
Intel have been asking them to do it for years, and still Steve refuses.

How much is windows these days?
I'd be shocked to learn you buy it (on its own) for less than the $90 tag on Panther....

Stella
Mar 25, 2004, 07:08 AM
Troll. What a load of utter ****.

Here we go again, "America is the saviour of the world". I'm pleased to say, it is NOT!


I agree with you wholeheartedly, EU economies would flounder without Microsoft coming to their rescue - showing them how real American enterprise save them from sliding back into the Middle Ages. Without American industrial leadership Europe would surely drown in a morass of mediocrity. Do you think America invented democracy too ?

singletrack
Mar 25, 2004, 07:45 AM
Troll. What a load of utter ****.

Here we go again, "America is the saviour of the world". I'm pleased to say, it is NOT!

We have this thing called 'humour' in Europe. It comes in many forms - wit, satire and even sarcasm. Some countries around the world are renowned for their inability to interoperate with European humour due to only having one brand of humour embedded into their systems at birth. Some of those countries occupants of course can find the ability to install other kinds of humour but there's little impetus to do so amongst the general masses.

The important thing about this EU ruling is that M$ is being told they have to interoperate and fess up the secrets. Humour aside, this is monumentally important for anyone that just wants their computers to talk to each other without aggravation. It's also important as the EU are saying to M$ that they shouldn't include application software in the OS (and media player and IE are applications not part of the OS) in such a way that OEMs can't replace them with equivalents applications of their choice. The fine is an aside.

djdarlek
Mar 25, 2004, 08:22 AM
is it just me or are we being a bit harsh on M$... ok, i hate them and love Apple as anyone.. BUT how long before Apple gets its ass kicked for bundling so many of their iApps with the OS?!?!? ok, Apple doesn't have anything near the marketshare of M$ BUT thats one thing they're working on! I can just see it now...

2010... M$ bankrupted after a virus attacks every user financially by decrypting bank details and millions of billions goes missing.. 2011.. Apple has 90% Market share... 2015.. lawsuit against apple for making its users use iTunes 10.....

just my 50pences worth

Stolid
Mar 25, 2004, 08:33 AM
Not to drag this back to the earlier thread I was in, but no one has yet explained to me why this is an "EU issue" -- I still see this as a "The US courts didn't do all we wanted; so we'll go to the EU and see if we can't get better"
http://news.com.com/2100-1012-5178914.html?tag=nl
There's also a good frontpage article on the WSJ from this monday about it.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why American Companies suing an American Company on laws similar to American laws but in Europe makes any sense.
Because whats to stop them from now going to Australia and suing? Then going to Japan? Then (etc etc)?
"That's just a risk of going multinational?" I expect a little better than that; the courts have paid attention to each other in the past, and I don't see why they aren't here, unless you want "Conspiracy Theory Jones" which says its because they can make a big fine to a company to collect.

Stella
Mar 25, 2004, 08:55 AM
I am from Europe.

it was also extremely early.. like 7.30am! :-D

I see the error of my ways !
We have this thing called 'humour' in Europe.

Supa_Fly
Mar 25, 2004, 09:01 AM
It's also important as the EU are saying to M$ that they shouldn't include application software in the OS (and media player and IE are applications not part of the OS) in such a way that OEMs can't replace them with equivalents applications of their choice. The fine is an aside. Agreed! Manufacturers of complete PC's are unable to remove WMP & IE because of the contracts imposed by M$.

As for the this same legal matter applying to Apple?? Guess it won't happen because Apple "Makes" their own hardware! The competition is on the applications - which they entice competition by working with companies closely. Indeed competition is bought out from time to time, but I don't believe their forced out because of a deal between the OS & the manufacturer of the complete system -their one & the same. There's a number of threads here on this topic.

MOFS
Mar 25, 2004, 09:04 AM
No, no, no. I'm not saying that at all. Of course Europeans need a legal remedy. But then, so do the Japanese, the Chinese, the Kuwaitis, and on down the line. What if the EU decided to break-up Microsoft, as was proposed here? That would have gone over like a lead balloon in the U.S. Somewhere, it has to become unfair to Microsoft.

Devil's advocate: Country X is a very large market. They are also home to Software, Inc - a new company. They want to protect their fledgling industry. Currently, like almost everyone else, nearly all comuters in X use Microsoft products. Why can't Country X determine that Microsoft is engaging in unfair bundling practices and fine them some ridiculous sum of money? Hurts a foreign company who will either have to pay up, pass the fine along to customers in X via increased price for Windows, or leave a large, lucrative market. Either way, Software, Inc wins and Country X has helped it's own.

I'm not saying this will happen, but when every multi-national is subject to the whims of every regulatory body in the world....

Something has to be arranged (perhaps it already is) through a multinational body like the WTO to insure that everyone plays fair with everyone else's companies.

Are you talking about the same WTO that allows huge multinationals to rape third world countries dry of thir on resources? The same WTO that allows subsidies from the EU, USA et al on their crops so much so that it is often cheaper for someone in a developing country to buy their food from those nations rather than their own?

Microsoft does 30% of its business in the EU, therefore it makes sense for the EU courts to take it to court! The rules are the same for all companies - not just Microsoft and not just those from the "good ol' US of A" - and I would bet that the reverse would be true, were any EU company to infringe on American laws in the same way as Microsoft on EU/ European laws.

Anyway - this is gonna take 4 years to happen now that Microsoft have decided to appeal. The worst is yet to come, however, with the threat of (more) trade barriers being imposed by the USA against EU companies a real possibility. :(

RHutch
Mar 25, 2004, 09:06 AM
Not to drag this back to the earlier thread I was in, but no one has yet explained to me why this is an "EU issue" -- I still see this as a "The US courts didn't do all we wanted; so we'll go to the EU and see if we can't get better"
http://news.com.com/2100-1012-5178914.html?tag=nl
There's also a good frontpage article on the WSJ from this monday about it.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why American Companies suing an American Company on laws similar to American laws but in Europe makes any sense.
Because whats to stop them from now going to Australia and suing? Then going to Japan? Then (etc etc)?
"That's just a risk of going multinational?" I expect a little better than that; the courts have paid attention to each other in the past, and I don't see why they aren't here, unless you want "Conspiracy Theory Jones" which says its because they can make a big fine to a company to collect.

The US courts only "addressed" the wrongs that had been committed by MS in the US against US consumers (because that's what they should address-the things that MS did wrong in their jurisdiction). And the US decision only took into account things that MS did before the time of that suit (more than 5 years ago?). The situation in the EU has to do with new actions, affecting different companies, and different consumers, at a different point in time.

By the way, who is the "we" that you are referring to bringing actions in both the US and EU. While the same companies may have been affected, the actions were not brought by US companies. The case in the US was brought by the DoJ. I believe Real has brought a suit against MS in California, but it's not the same as the DoJ action or the EU action.

I haven't seen anywhere that says that a US company is suing a US company in the EU. The thing in the EU is a government action.

Waragainstsleep
Mar 25, 2004, 09:41 AM
Is anybody bothering to read ANY of this thread?!!!!

EU: "We want people to have the ability to choose which software they run."
M$: "We can't easily remove our apps from our OS."
EU: "We have decided that such an arrangement is anti-competitive, and thus the consumers will lose out. Please supply your competitors in this field the information they require to compete with you, remove your apps from at least one version of your OS, and give us a big pile of cash please."
M$: "Don't want to." <Sulks>

Monopolies may not be illegal, but they aren't allowed (more often than not). Thats why there is a Monopolies and Mergers Commision.

Imagine if a one company had control of 90% of the Car or Air travel or Oil business. How rich and powerful would they be? Or one corp supplying 90% of the worlds electricity? Scary thoughts, when you see how M$ operate....

Here is an analogy for those who believe it unfair that M$ are being tried twice for the 'same' crime:
Police Officer: "You're under arrest for murder."
Mass Murderer: "Don't bother mate, I was convicted of murder years ago, so its perfectly fine. I'm allowed."

Double Jeopardy means you cannot be treid twice for the same crime. You can be tried as many times as necessary for the same offence.

Maybe the EU is trying to take M$ down a peg or two, but not only does M$ control the OS market, they also control what hardware becames widely used to some extent, and more importantly they control when people have to upgrade their hardware. This is the power afforded to them by holding a monopoly.
Authorites were not able to prevent M$ from getting their monopoly, (Whereas they have succeeded in preventing the rise of many others in other industries) and are merely attempting to ensure that they don't use their OS monopoly to set up another one on software apps. Or anything else.

The only other company I can think of that has a monopoly anywhere near M$, is DeBeers. They've had theirs a long time. Lets hope the same is not true of M$.


The good news is that the reults of both cases have/will allow others to bring lawsuits against them. They already paid out $2Bn.....

http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/legalissues/story/0,10801,91363,00.html?nas=OS-91363

Trimix
Mar 25, 2004, 09:56 AM
Troll. What a load of utter ****.

Here we go again, "America is the saviour of the world". I'm pleased to say, it is NOT!

Stella, that was my attempt at sarcasm ROFL
Please read my message again

digitalbiker
Mar 25, 2004, 10:43 AM
Imagine if a one company had control of 90% of the Car or Air travel or Oil business. How rich and powerful would they be? Or one corp supplying 90% of the worlds electricity? Scary thoughts, when you see how M$ operate....


There is more to the definition of a monopoly than just market share. In all of the above examples, these are true monopolies because they limit choice. These are all distribution infrastructure issues and they completely limit choice in certain geographic areas.

For example: a person would not be able to choose a different power company if in their area only one was available. Therefore unregulated, the power company could dictate any price for electricity and all users if they wanted electricity would have to pay the price. No alternative!

In Microsoft's case they may have a 90 percent market share but users are definitely not limited in choice. In the case of Microsoft, people choose their product. However, anyone (regardless of geographic location) could choose an Apple product to do the exact same thing. Or they could even buy an x86 machine and install linux for free. What I don't get is where is Microsoft limiting choice?

Where the US courts did find fault with Microsoft was in their use of illegal business practices whereby they used their market position to coerce hardware venders to distribute only windows based software pre-installed on their hardware or they weren't going to allow the vender to distribute any oem versions of the windows OS. This was illegal and was stopped!

analogkid
Mar 25, 2004, 10:48 AM
I guess the fact that IBM dumped CPM and went solely with MS-DOS as the OS for the original PC had nothing to do with it, right? Of course, the fact that Billy Boy's parents were friends with executives at the highest level of IBM at the time all this happened didn't come into play either, right? This is the foundation on which their "aggressive business plan" was built. We should all be so lucky... I mean privileged (as in the privileged few).

A lot of people here dont realise exactly what MS's business model is.
They have put more programmers out of work than file sharing ever did.
They are like a tax on technology.
Bill never programmed code for MS-DOS he used a little capital and questionable morals along with circumstancial contacts to destroy any competition. MS is frankly, mainly built off the bones of its victims
Two kids- MS-DOS
Apple-Windows

something went wrong though... apply wouldnt die, we didnt let them kill it, even when Jobs lost the company. Think what you will of jobs, he's no bill gates...
wow, just think if the government had paid those two kids the couple thousand for the MS-DOS software, and then ripped apple off of the Xerox OS work, they would have saved a trillion dollars to the economy.

Foocha
Mar 25, 2004, 11:42 AM
In the case of Microsoft, people choose their product. However, anyone (regardless of geographic location) could choose an Apple product to do the exact same thing.

This is not strictly true - there are many situations where one has no alternative but to use a Microsoft product.

For example:

Many Microsoft Office documents cannot be opened and edited in competitor packages.

Some Server functionality for Windows clients only works on Windows Server.

Most companies have made such a substantial investement in Windows that the costs, risks and hassle of migration are such that it is effectively impossible - they are "locked in" to Windows.

Mac User
Mar 25, 2004, 12:49 PM
Those of you hoping the EU ruling will really change things are not being realistic. Even if, after SEVERAL years of appeals, this is implemented, what computer hardware company in its right mind will want to pay the same price to M$ for Windows without WMP? Who wants to receive LESS for the same amount? (That's right, the ruling does not require M$ to charge less for the stripped version.) The fine is miniscule in the larger scheme of things, as others have mentioned. But all of this is OK by me, since I would rather have Apple gain share again because consumers/business/government CHOOSE to buy Apple more computers rather than because the EU (or any other govt.) decides to get involved. Apple CAN win this battle on the playing field, without any help from the umpires. :cool:

j_maddison
Mar 25, 2004, 01:15 PM
why do you all think microsoft is this big evil company? let's be honest people, they've made a lot of good innovations in technology. if we didn't have one main os in the market, not as many people would be using a computer. your average person doesn't want to have to learn another os. i use my ibook for portable things and my pc for my home so i'm not partial to either format. both have their advantages. i do think that if microsoft didn't try to include things such as a media player people would have no idea how to play files. my mom could sit down and if a sound file didn't open up she'd have no idea how to fix that. people want an os that will work. i think the same thing can be said for apple too. why does it come with ilife and quicktime? honestly, if you took ms out of the picture what os would take over? the average person buying a $499 computer system from dell can't afford a $2000 system from apple. is linux a viable option? not at all. it seems the governments are going after microsoft while the normal computer user doesn't care.

Sorry but ive never seen an eMac cost $2000

digitalbiker
Mar 25, 2004, 01:48 PM
This is not strictly true - there are many situations where one has no alternative but to use a Microsoft product.


I agree that there are a few times when you may be required to use a Microsoft product but most of the time this is not due to a market situation such as supply & demand.

The examples you sited were both situations where office politics or corporate IT strategy required you to use Microsoft, not because there wasn't a good alternative choice.

I think that today the smart business has become aware of the problem of having all your eggs in one software giant's basket. As a result more and more business today are opting for open source or open architecture solutions ie: linux servers, xml documents, sql friendly databases, OpenGl graphics, etc. So that their future is not limited or dictated by the direction that Microsoft chooses.

The EU is no exception. Open solutions are the future! Apple knows it. Linux groups know it. Business knows it. Even Microsoft knows it, but they don't like it!

Naimfan
Mar 25, 2004, 04:06 PM
Even if, after SEVERAL years of appeals...

But MS almost certainly won't be given the several years of appeals--the decision is NOT automatically stayed under EU law. It is up to the court whether or not to stay the order, and the lawyers I've talked to don't think the court will stay the order pending the appeal.

Best,

Bob

firedrill
Mar 25, 2004, 04:30 PM
Mr Monti, an italian politician, on behalf of European Union has inflicted that record fine to microshaft;
themore italian ministers in december 2003 put microsoft systems outlaw for public administration, police, government, and education because of its 'close-source', 'anti-standards' and 'spy-ware', as well for its (high)costs and 'no-performances' features.
So I can proudly say: in Italy we're on the right way to be the Bill Gates' Nemesis ! Maybe a real nightmare ? I wait for the first Apple Store in Italy.... we deserve it !

amyhre
Mar 25, 2004, 05:19 PM
Yes, some companies seem to be locked in to Microsoft. The government is especially bad, but they resist change anyway. It's kinda like how America will probably never go metric, too much hassle. On a side note, Japan is leveling it's guns at Microsoft as well. More of the illegal business practices, Microsoft forcing companies to give up proprietary secrets so they can have Microsoft products running on them. What bastards! However, some of these Asian governments are getting fed up and are switching to Linux. They'd rather not take the MS shaft anymore. The Chinese government has already written a version of Linux called Red Flag for their own use. Maybe Asians really are just more intelligent. :)

windowsblowsass
Mar 25, 2004, 05:34 PM
Not to drag this back to the earlier thread I was in, but no one has yet explained to me why this is an "EU issue" -- I still see this as a "The US courts didn't do all we wanted; so we'll go to the EU and see if we can't get better"
http://news.com.com/2100-1012-5178914.html?tag=nl
There's also a good frontpage article on the WSJ from this monday about it.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why American Companies suing an American Company on laws similar to American laws but in Europe makes any sense.
Because whats to stop them from now going to Australia and suing? Then going to Japan? Then (etc etc)?
"That's just a risk of going multinational?" I expect a little better than that; the courts have paid attention to each other in the past, and I don't see why they aren't here, unless you want "Conspiracy Theory Jones" which says its because they can make a big fine to a company to collect.
BECAUSE THEIR INTERNATIONAL COM ANIES OPERATING IN DIFFERENT NATIONS WHERE ONE COUNTRYS RULING DOESNT APPLY THEIR NOT TECHNICALLY AMERICAN COMPANYS THEY OPERATE IN MULTIPLE NATIONS
edit sorry about thecaps didnt see the little green light

tychay
Mar 25, 2004, 05:34 PM
hey guys, i'm a little confused on why they have to reveal there code and what the point of that is?

is it so other operating systems can copy what windows is doing?

is os x code available? not to knowledgeable on this so i was curious

The reason is because Microsoft uses undocumented application programming interfaces to maintain their monopoly. When Microsoft enters into a nascent market, they use bundling with the monopoly product (in this case Windows, but it could be Office) to create vertical foreclosure ("lock in"). This new app interoperates with the monopoly product using undocumented and unavailable protocols that stifle competition.

Note that bundling is a legal tactic for non-monopolists. For instance, there is nothing keeping Apple from bundling QuickTime with Mac OS because Mac OS is not a monopoly.

The goal is to level the playing field in the applications market. A nice side effect would have been to level the playing field for other operating systems (like the Mac or Linux) to interoperate with Windows.

Unfortunately, EU gave license for Microsoft to levy a royalty on this stuff so effectively, Mac and Linux are closed out. The Linux people need royalty-free information, and Apple leverages Linux projects like Samba to maintain their compatibility.

It makes sense that the EU penalty was harsher because EU anti-trust regulations seems to center around keeping healthy competition while US law requires proving "harm to the consumer". I believe a fine levied against another EU company earlier this year was almost as high as the Microsoft one so it seems very reasonable and perhaps a little light.

Unfortunately, this will just be taken by some sectors as EU abusing a US company and other assorted wrapping around in the (U.S.) flag.

Much of the code for OSX is available through Darwin (http://developer.apple.com/darwin/) which I believe is GPL-compatible open-source license (or very nearly). Much of the code on top of that is open-sourced because Apple uses existing open-source projects: kHTML (for Safari), Apache, gcc/gdb (for XCode) etc.

However, Apple does not open source the graphic user interface of the operating system or the GUI parts of applications such as Safari. Nor do they open source their commercial software (iLife, etc.)

I hope this helps,

terry

mattmack
Mar 25, 2004, 06:21 PM
No way will they reveal their code. That ruling will be overturned on the appeal. That's like asking KFC what's their 11 herbs and spices. As far as I am aware KFC doesn't limit if you want to sell fried chicken. This is an anti trust suit and not simply asking them to reveal their secrets

crazzyeddie
Mar 26, 2004, 08:36 AM
All i can say is- Finally. The US should have done this years ago. Maybe then the situation with WMP wouldn't be so out of hand.

InsiderTravels
Mar 26, 2004, 09:48 AM
I agree with you wholeheartedly, EU economies would flounder without Microsoft coming to their rescue - showing them how real American enterprise save them from sliding back into the Middle Ages. Without American industrial leadership Europe would surely drown in a morass of mediocrity. Do you think America invented democracy too ?


Now, that's the kind of sarcasm I love. Thank you Switzerland for saying what I hadn't had the guts to say myself. As an American, I'm always amazed and appalled at just how many of my fellow citizens truly believe in the myth of American superiority. And sadly, that naivety only seems to be progressively getting worse.

jasonvaughan
Mar 27, 2004, 02:05 PM
No way will they reveal their code. That ruling will be overturned on the appeal. That's like asking KFC what's their 11 herbs and spices.

Or rather getting KFC to revel which variety of genetically modified rat was being passed off as tender suculent chicken!

NB the example above is for illustrative purposes only. The author does NOT think KFC passes off rat as chicken!

mattmack
Mar 27, 2004, 02:18 PM
Or rather getting KFC to revel which variety of genetically modified rat was being passed off as tender suculent chicken!

NB the example above is for illustrative purposes only. The author does NOT think KFC passes off rat as chicken! I don't know I've had some fishy tasting chicken lately:)

carbonmotion
Mar 27, 2004, 02:29 PM
I don't care for Microsoft or its products anymore then the next guy, but I think this "holy war" mentality needs to end.

These rulings are coming down from world-class moronic beauracrats, they don't understand how operating systems or computers work. IE, WMP, they are all integrated into XP; just like QuickTime, iTunes, and Safari are integrated into OS X. Take out those components, and that removes a lot of the capabilities of the OS. For example, doesn't OS X use QuickTime to display some of the effects? Like Expose? It's biased, and really comes across as jealousy more then anything else, to think you can rule on Microsoft in one way and let everyone else do the same thing.

If you really don't like Microsoft as a monoply, do something about it. Provide tax incentives to Microsoft for being competitive and to their competitors for coming up with new ideas, have government organizations re-evaluate using MS software (OpenOffice for instance), etc. You can grow the economy, deal with the problem, and encourage the tech industry to come back; sounds a lot better then just sitting around and levying retarded rulings that have about as much effect in dealing with the issue as smoking pot does.

You can delete Quicktime, Safari, and iTunes from the applications folder and osx will still work... not so with IE and MWP... they are tightly integrated in to th esystem so much so that if they are deleted, the os will collapse.

mattmack
Mar 27, 2004, 03:08 PM
You can delete Quicktime, Safari, and iTunes from the applications folder and osx will still work... not so with IE and MWP... they are tightly integrated in to th esystem so much so that if they are deleted, the os will collapse. I would have to agree the ruling is based on the OS not any individual selling product from microsoft. The problem with the OS is you can not ake any of the individual components (such as IE or WMP) out and still have a functional system and also even if you try to delete these features the os won't let you. (It would probably connect to th einternet and tell microsoft that you are doing something illegal j/k)

trueice
Mar 30, 2004, 08:25 AM
I agree that whether or not M$ bundles a media player with the OS is by itself, not a big deal. One of the more problematic aspects of what M$ has done is that it claims the OS itself is basically rendered "inoperable" if they DO NOT include things like IE or the Media Player. This is just plain wrong, and if it isn't, it is further evidence that M$ is selling crap since a first year computer science student understands why there are layers in software and why you separate 'system' software from 'application' software. They make those claims because they know the average user will take to whatever is already there and will not bother to explore alternatives from competitors.

I don't personally know anyone who has actually bought a $499 computer from Dell (or anyone else). By the time they they throw in all the other add-ons required to make it even a marginally desirable system, they spend considerably more. The '$499' figure just helps promote the myth that PCs cost far less than Macs.

I'm also interested in your assertion that M$ has made a lot of good innovations in technology. Everything I have ever seen M$ do with regard to technology turned out to be a bad "knock-off" of some existing technology. In most cases, their attempts yielded that was not as good/reliable as the original, or was "proprietary" and closed (would not operate with the existing item).

I make software for a living and I just find it very hard to have any kind of respect for M$, what they do, and how they do it. I hate that they have made so much money by pushing "crap" to the masses, and to a large degree, convinced the public that it's OK and that is just what should be expected when they use a computer.

-- Mr_Ed steps off the soap box -- :)


There is not a single major software vendor who doesnt or hasnt done the same thing microsoft has done. If you actually think that Apple "designed" all of their software or that Adobe and Macromedia havent bought and shut down other software companies that shows your bias and maybe naivete.

For all the Apple lovers (the company not the hardware), get real, they are a large company just like any other. If everything were run the Apple way they would say one thing and then do another, ask the Retail Sales Reps about their bonuses, or how about the resellers who are being forced out of the market. If the market were reversed Apple would do the exact same things. Fanatics (not all mac users fall in this category) seem to have a short memory, now they all love IBM for making a viable processor alternative to AMD and Intel, the same company that they hated as much as they hate MS in this day and age.
Owning both and selling both at CompUSA, I can honestly say that PCs DO cost less, much less hardware-wise. I have a g3 all-in-one, a 1ghz emac radeon graphics, and probably will buy g5 sometime soon. At the sametime I will be upgrading my pc from AMD 2700+ to an AMD64fx.

The biggest problem with Apple is that they dont compete with PCs on a hardware level, they blow them out of the water as far as applications, but when someone can get an AMD64, 512 DDR400, 160GBHDD, 8x DVD Burner, VGA/DVI and TV-out, 5 usb and 2 firewire400s, for $1000 (950 if you include rebate Compaq 6900NX) people generally gravitate to the PC...I know I did not include the screen, but if you really think an emac or an imac can compare with that machine Apple wouldnt have such a hard time selling the emacs and imacs. As a geek I should mention that Compaq uses a standard ATX case so if someone were so inclined they could always swap out motherboard and proc.
In the case of my emac it was 757 at store cost, then I had to hack it to add the dvd burner, and 80gb hard drive, I cant really compare cost on that one because I had extra dvd burners and it only cost me about 70 for the 80gb.

I cant wait to see how fanatics react if MS charges for SP2, something Apple has been doing for years....

//*Another soapbox rant from a pc and mac lover....Mac vs. PC "Introducing the worlds Dumbest debate" *//

Foocha
Apr 1, 2004, 10:15 AM
obviously freaking EU wants to know how to make the damn OS. They don't give a rat ass about the money. As long as they have the idea of how they make the OS then they will make more money then 470 million craps. But if bill gates doesn't want to pay hell let fine him.
That's the deal you bunch of mac morons.

Us freaking Europeans already have Linux (written by Linus Torvalds, another freaking EU citizen), so we don't need to pinch an OS off anyone.

t0m3nt0r
Apr 1, 2004, 10:25 AM
sure linux. how many people use them . well not as much as microsoft i am guessing. I am not sure what they will do with it but for sure they will use it for their own benefit such ash improve their os, make more virus for micro. lol
whatever, there many reasons for that
you don't know neither do i but i have the free to say this stuff

t0m3nt0r
Apr 1, 2004, 10:27 AM
BTW don't tell me that not a single company doesn't want to play monopoly
bull ****

Foocha
Apr 1, 2004, 10:41 AM
Is this an April Fools? :D

dekator
Apr 2, 2004, 12:42 AM
All i can say is- Finally. The US should have done this years ago. Maybe then the situation with WMP wouldn't be so out of hand.

I think you're spot-on in pointing out that Media Player (and its format) is the biggest issue here. There's an interesting article on Yahoo (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1510&ncid=1510&e=3&u=/afp/20040401/tc_afp/us_eu_it_microsoft_040401070842) about its implications and the future of digital entertainment.

(It may show up at MacBytes too, perhaps, as I submitted it)