What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, "Time for Miracles" view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
47 Comments
- somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12There's a difference between "best company" and "company abusing its monopoly."
Look at Spyglass- they licensed their browser to Microsoft for a percentage of the sales. Microsoft then gave it away for free to compete with Netscape, meaning that not only could Spyglass not collect any royalties, but they couldn't licence it to anyone else. Does that make Microsoft the "best company"?
(Spyglass successfully sued, but it took several years for them to win the case.)
Then there's Netscape- they gave their browser away for free, funded by selling server software. Microsoft then gave away IE for free along with Windows (despite a previous agreement not to include any more products with Windows- they argued that IE isn't a product; it's a "feature"...), stopped resellers from including Netscape's browser with illegal licencing deals, and undercut Netscape's server software by funding it from elsewhere within the company. Driving Netscape out of business, not through providing a better product or service, but by attacking their business model. - dtietze1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Huh? WTF??
MS is a player in a global market, making money in the EU. What makes you think Microsoft could "pull out of Europe and stop supporting them"? How is Microsoft supporting the EU? MS has commercial and legal agreements with their customers, to whom they sold software products.
You have a *very* strange view of the world. - dtietze1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@bluehouse - I *did* read your entire post. But just writing "they probably wouln't" doesn't help the fact that the entire assumption is B.S. MS is not in a position that they could make Europe "seriously hurt", wihtout hurting themselves even more seriously first.
- phpirate, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Its good that they're putting the pressure on Microsoft. Their business tactics have squashed so many companies, its about time that changed.
- kahrn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I've said this before and I'll say it again. If MS got kicked out of Europe or it pulled out, it would cause alot of disruption to Europe for quite a while.
But what you have failed to realize is that it will cause disruption not only to Europe, but to the people who deal with Europe. MS will also lose more than Europe as people who deal with Europe will end up switching, and in turn they would lose a hell of a lot.
Europe could recover, MS could not. - ajifans, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8We have the same debate every single day, with the same dumb comments:
- "Microsoft flick the kill switch on Europe; that'll learn em'" - WRONG it would destroy Microsoft - a) They'd be sued, b) Everyone would migrate to other platforms.
- "Products should be left to the market to decide" - Being able to use your size to lock out competitors destroys the market. The rules are in place to force Microsoft to compete on product quality and price. - Anth741, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"Their business tactics have squashed so many companies, its about time that changed."
I'm going to be buried for this.. but isn't that what happens when government doesn't regulate business? Isn't that what separates our country from communist countries? Don't get me wrong... I'm considering buying a Mac laptop for college, and many of my Friends already have, hell I have actually suggested it to some of them. Isn't that how it should work? The best company will win, without intervention. - Canthros, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@Anth641: Best is a subjective term, and some people get very confused and upset about its meaning in the market.
- Eoxx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Microsoft needs more Europe than Europe needs Microsoft.
USA didn't dare to attack Microsoft on its monopolistic moves ... Microsoft thought Europe will do the same ... But Europe didn't ...
Microsft makes a lot of money in europe, so why would Europe let a company destroy alternatives and oblige people to use their products by making you pay for the OS that is in the computer even if you don't need it... alternatives exist ... from Mac to linux ... and why is Windows so expensive ... because they rule the market so they can sell you the same OS over and over .. by just changing its GUI interface ... - somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yep. That's pretty much what the EU's asking for.
Users would be able to choose their web browser (you don't need a browser to connect to the internet, btw) instead of having IE whether they want it or not, security holes and all. Same thing with Media Player.
There is no application bundled with Windows that doesn't have a free alternative, and although this is obviously just my personal opinion, I've not yet seen an application bundled with Windows that doesn't have a superior, free alternative. I'm not sure what software you think people are getting for free from Microsoft that they would be forced to go out and spend billions on...
Of course, it's not just an EU thing either- Microsoft agreed with a ruling in the US not to bundle any more products with Windows. (That was before they release IE to drive Netscape out of business, then bundled wit with Windows and argued that it was a "feature" rather than a product, despite being a seperate product previously, and then went on to debate the definitions of complicated technical terms like "compete", "ask" and "we.") - dtietze1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Coca-Cola does not have a de-facto monopoly.
Coca-Cola does not have a formula which prevents you from drinking the stuff from glasses not manufactured and sold by CC.
CC does not come preinstalled in all fridges, forcing you to pay extra for the soda, even if you only want to use the fridge for storing vegetables.
CC does not pay subsidies to fridge manufacturers, in effect making it more expensive for the manufacturer to sell a fridge *without* Coke in it than one with. - Optimistic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The Coke-Pepsi analogy above is really far off.
If Coke was like Microsoft, then the situation would be like the following: (you'll have to be a bit imaginative):
The huge majority of people drink Coke and Coke can only be drank with sandwiches that Coke likes. If you want to develop a sandwich that works with Coke, then you need to know some things about Coke. Well, Coke makes it's own sandwiches (or has partnered with other sandwich makers) and doesn't like to give away that information. This prevents rival sandwich makers from entering the market.
What the EU is trying to do is let more people make sandwiches so that people can eat those sandwiches when they drink thier Cokes. It is not about the Coke---its about the sandwiches. - somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"How many non-computer people actually know this. Therefore they need to go out and find a copy. Stores aren't going to just give away free software in there stores."
Netscape managed before IE. Ubuntu manage it. Mozilla manage it.
Have you ever known someone to go to a shop to buy an AOL cd? I doubt it- and yet there's an *awful* lot of AOL cds out there...
"Eventually companies will start putting out CD with a dozen or so of there products, all of which will install on your computer when you install the CD, thus why go and try competitors products? So, once again we basically come down to the same thing, who has better marketting and advertising and business sence."
So you end up with an open market for software applications, not dictated by the holder of a monopoly on the OS market?
Exactly what the EU is after- fair competition and freedom of choice! - somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@wistar- I wouldn't say that they were exactly "high speed years"- after the release of V4 (June 1997), Netscape was dead in the water. The war was over; their market share was past it's peak and in decline; IE was bundled with every copy of Windows, Apple had switched from Netscape to IE for the Mac, and thanks to the money Microsoft was spending on it's development, IE4 was simply a better product than Netscape 4.
I agree that Netscape starting again from scratch was madness from a marketing perspective, but I don't believe that from a technical perspective they had any choice- there was a reason that Netscape 5 was never released, after all. On the other hand, even though that rewritten project never had a chance ot take off, it was what evolved into Mozilla/Firefox. (I think it's interesting to contemplate that if IE had done the same, maybe today it wouldn't be the bane of every web developers lives...)
As for the issue of "good for the industry"- I'll simply point out that before Microsoft, software was written for the users of computer hardware; not for the profit of the publishers. - ThugEsquire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Microsoft using an Apple tactic? That's original.
- jchri09, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5With all of the time and trouble that the EU is putting on MS why don't they learn how to make their own OS's and then stop worrying about anti-trust cases?
So they would have their own problems to deal with.
I think it is a grand idea. - phpirate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Anth741: Good point, but a monopolistic company which crushes its opponents sounds less of a free society. In a free society every company and person should have the ability and chance to come out as number one. Do you honestly think Microsoft is best for us? Its like the Internet explorer issue. They haven't updated it in half a decade which slowed web development to a crawl - the only thing that made Microsoft do anything about it was firefox - if IE wasn't bundled with everything a lot more people would of changed.
- somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Exactly which companies are suing Microsoft "cuz they made 1 attempt and gave up"?
There is more than one issue that Microsoft are facing;
There's the issue that it's impossible (or at best very difficult) to buy a computer that doesn't come with a Microsoft licence, so people are paying for Windows whether they want it or not. Whether this is because Microsoft are acting illegally to enforce their monopoly or if this is the natural result of market demand is currently being investigated/debated.
Then there's the API issue- Microsoft don't publish all the details of the Windows APIs, meaning that they can use undocumented APIs that other application programmers can't, giving Microsoft an unfair advantage in the software applications market by abusing their monopoly of the OS market.
Then there's the issue of bundled software- that Microsoft bundle certain software with Windows to stifle competition- again, giving Microsoft an unfair advantage in the software applications market by abusing their monopoly of the OS market.
There's plenty of other issues to do with Microsoft's business practices, but those are the main three that the EU are concerned with at the moment. - wistar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@somerandomnerd
Although the end result is the same, your account of Netscape's demise omits a key, and very important, fact: At the height of Netscape's popularity, after the release of v4, Netscape did something indescribably stupid and self-destructed by their own hand. They decided to re-write the browser from the ground up and for THREE YEARS, three crucial high-speed years in the evolution of the web, Netscape had NO RELEASES. Microsoft coasted to a finish.
Joel Spolsky writes at length about this idiotic and company destroying decision in his excellent Joel On Software archives. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3[quote]USA didn't dare to attack Microsoft on its monopolistic moves ... Microsoft thought Europe will do the same ... But Europe didn't ...[/quote]
That's because the EU has no need to protect MS's monopoly.
The US government needs MS to make insecure OSes that can be spied on and tracked. MS plays ball with the US government, make no mistake about it. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3They do alot better with Linux and OS X, that's for sure.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The same reason people continue to use MS products even though their buggy? People use what they are used to and fear change. Not saying that is the reason, but probably a likely one.
- somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"microsoft have done more good for the computer industry than probably ALL the other companies combined."
Ha ha. I'd love to see someone qualify that statement. - finowns, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Well, Coke makes it's own sandwiches (or has partnered with other sandwich makers) and doesn't like to give away that information. This prevents rival sandwich makers from entering the market."
What the hell are you talking about? I'm sure Mircosoft and Mozilla are best friends and mircosoft just allowed them to take over 20% of the market. NO! Mozilla saw IE shortcomings and made a better product. end - twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4If MS had provided Windows Media Player and IE and NOT allowed you to use competitor's players or browsers, I think the EU would have a case. But, it "appears" that MS provided these things and others as a convenience.
I know I will get modded down, but, I don't know any other industry that is forced to reveal proprietary information to their competitors in order to do business or compete in the market. - kubudubudubuntu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yeah, and they would be alot happier with Linux/OSX
- kubudubudubuntu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2oh id love a totally stripped down windows,. like TinyXP, but with full XP functionality.
- nazgulos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@Anth641: "I'm going to be buried for this.. but isn't that what happens when government doesn't regulate business? Isn't that what separates our country from communist countries?"
Microsoft is regulating business by dirty tricks. It can bring down other companies but govs. can't?
"The best company will win, without intervention." - But MS do it all the time. Should we stop MS or not? - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2[quote]I've said this before and I'll say it again. If MS got kicked out of Europe or it pulled out, it would cause alot of disruption to Europe for quite a while.[/quote]
It wouldn't cause any disruption whatsoever. Existing copies wouldn't just evaporate, and future copies could be purchased through imports. There's no way MS could stop it.
But after that, the EU would move to Linux and OS X, and that is something MS cannot afford.
MS better comply, because if it doesn't, it means the end of MS. The EU fully backing the alternatives would incite a massive influx of development, as well as other regions adopting alternatives--Asia, Africa, etc. - wistar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"... but I don't believe that from a technical perspective they had any choice..."
Au contraire, at least in my opinion. Rewriting from scratch is an extreme approach and one that destroyed Netscape and ushered IE into a position of dominance. NS4 was an extremely popular browser and IE was well behind it in popularity and capability when the decision to build the code from ground-up was made. There was a lot of public awareness of Netscape and it was a Wall Street darling despite some fall off in its stock price during 1997.
Some insightful reading:
http://joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html - "Things You Should Never Do, Part I"
http://joelonsoftware.com/news/fog0000000215.html - Responses to the article, including one from a senior Netscape dev.
http://joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000027.html - "Netscape Goes Bonkers" - A followup. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2[quote]If MS had provided Windows Media Player and IE and NOT allowed you to use competitor's players or browsers, I think the EU would have a case. But, it "appears" that MS provided these things and others as a convenience.[/quote]
That's nice. Except that's not what they're being sued over. MS was requested to provide documentation on hidden API hooks that it used to give such applications an unfair advantage over third-party apps. The EU also wants to make sure there are no backdoors in Windows, as we have seen with WGA. It is a matter of international security, not just MS's business.
Personally, I think any organization that values security would be insane for running MS products to begin with. The code in Windows is so large, so obfuscated via dll modules and hidden API hooks that there could be all kinds of questionable functions in it.
For security reasons, operating system code must be thoroughly documented, if not open-sourced completely. - somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He's talking about the fact that Microsoft don't publish everything about how Windows works, meaning that there's features that Microsoft applications can use which other software developers are unaware of, which rigs the market. You know, the whole antitrust, abuse of monopoly thing...
- twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@ Foxx:
Microsoft needs more Europe than Europe needs Microsoft.
"USA didn't dare to attack Microsoft on its monopolistic moves ... Microsoft thought Europe will do the same ... But Europe didn't ..."
Uh, yes they did. That is why the EU got brave enough to try it. They saw an opportunity to leverage control and make some money.
"Microsft makes a lot of money in europe, so why would Europe let a company destroy alternatives and oblige people to use their products by making you pay for the OS that is in the computer even if you don't need it... alternatives exist ... from Mac to linux ... and why is Windows so expensive ... because they rule the market so they can sell you the same OS over and over .. by just changing its GUI interface ..."
You blow your own argument "alternatives exist..." Microsoft does not force customers to use their bundled software. You don't have to use text editor, media player, internet explorer, calculator or ANY OF IT. The only thing you have to use is the GUI. The EU is just jumping on the "me too!" bandwagon after the US DOJ filed suit against MS and settled out of court.
You suffer from a bit of ethnocentricity and are under the mistaken delusion that Europe is a lot more powerful or important to MS than I believe it really is. I believe that other markets have a lot more to offer with a lot less confusion and back-biting that what you get when dealing with the EU. Too much confusion and disaray. No ability to come to a concise decision quickly. Typical. - bluehouse, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3dtietze1.... First we have no idea what is really going on with the EU and MS other than what is spoon fed to us my the media. My guess is the EU doesn't want MS to pull out and MS wouldn't pull out. I was trying to say that MS could use the threat as leverage in negotiations of these fines. If for some weird reason they did, I don't think they'd collapse (either the EU or MS). There are other markets they can dig their tentacles into
- dtietze1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@Archer1980 -- Are they doing that? Well, then they should get busted and fined for that.
- wistar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2...or the reverse, for that matter.
- DarkGrim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2All Microsoft has to do is threaten to withdraw all of their products and everything from Europe and tell Europe to screw themselves. Lets see how good Europe will do without Windows and Computers that run Windows.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5"But MS do it all the time. Should we stop MS or not?"
no we shouldnt. microsoft have done more good for the computer industry than probably ALL the other companies combined. - Archer1980, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2See, this is the funny part, half the people say it's about the programs that run on windows, and some people say it's about what operating systems run on what computers.
When it comes to companies installing only windows cuz they've entered into special agreements with microsoft, then it is the same as coke and pepsi entering exclusive deals with schools and other selling points.
As for the other points, i've seen plenty of good software developed by non-microsoft companies that work much better then stuff created by MS. These companies didn't have to sue microsoft for there code, they just went out and actually put some effort into it's creation. Now we have lovely applications like Apache, Real Player, Fire Fox, and others.
There companies just need to actually do some work, and not just sue microsoft cuz they made 1 attempt and gave up. - Archer1980, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6I think it's time microsft made a EU copy of Windows. One that doesn't contain a media player, or a web browser, or any image viewing software. No Built in games, no Built in Applications what so ever, just a plain, stripped down, empty version of Windows.
Then they can go ahead and go online, oo wait, no web browser. Ok, well, they can go to there local computer stores and pay for software that microsoft provides for free. That should only cost there economy lets see, billions? Yeah, the ultimate way to screw them over. - Archer1980, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Well, i wouldn't honestly suggest pulling completely out of the EU, i just think that MS should offer a bare bones, nothing installed version of MS. This will give the public the right to decide on everything that goes into there system, at a price.
Doing offering this type of Windows 1. Elemenates competitors from Complaining about pre-installed software, and 2. Shows government officials how pointless some of the actions they've taken are. - Archer1980, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3@dtietze1
You are absolutely right, CC doesn't have a monopoly neither does Pepsi, except when they sign exclusive deals with Schools and say ok, now you can ONLY sell our product in your schools, and are not allowed to sell competitors products.
Hmmmm, to me, that sounds like the same thing microsoft does.... - Archer1980, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2ok, as for your first comment, you are right, you don't need a browser to surf the web. How many non-computer people actually know this. Therefore they need to go out and find a copy. Stores aren't going to just give away free software in there stores. Stores like Walmart will want to charge to provide that CD to you with the browser software on it. And while you are at it they will want you to buy a media player, cuz you will definately need one of those. oo, and you'll need something to view pictures.
Eventually companies will start putting out CD with a dozen or so of there products, all of which will install on your computer when you install the CD, thus why go and try competitors products? So, once again we basically come down to the same thing, who has better marketting and advertising and business sence.
It may not be as bad as what microsoft is doing, but it opens the door for a second microsoft to come along in the 3rd party software wars. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4"Do you honestly think Microsoft is best for us?"
yes. - daven1986, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4why should microsoft let people know how their OS works? No one knows Coke-a-Colas formula...
If linux was more user-friendly more people would use it, it isnt MS's fault that it has no competition - bluehouse, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Doesn't the EU know that MS could just say, "screw you guys, I'm going home"? They probably wouldn't but if they did pull out of Europe and stop supporting them, Europe would be seriously hurting.
- bluehouse, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3dtietze1.... That's why I said "they probably wouldn't." Thanks for reading my whole post.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is