Microsoft versus the EU: The Battle Continues

[LennonCook]

Regulators tell Microsoft there's plenty in a name

First the fine (somewhere in the line of US$613 million) for anti-competitive practice; then the order to ship a version of Windows which doesn't have Media Player and not charge extra for it; and now a refusal to accept the suggested name.
The EU has apparently decided to give Microsoft hell.

EDIT: corrected a couple of minor details...

[ 01-29-2005, 02:35 AM: Message edited by: LennonCook ]

[philip]

No LOL this is so stupid. Haven't they got anything better to do? I really love that name, reduced media edition [img]smile.gif[/img] Those guys in Brussels are surely making theirselves look like idiots with these childish fines. Just like in the last thread I'll say that you might not like M$'s way of doing business it's plain stupid they have to punish M$ while most if not every company uses those kind of tactics.

[shamrock_uk]

I'm not sure its stupid - they're making a statement to MS, hoping that it will get the hint that competition policy in the EU is pretty robust.

And yes, whilst other companies carry out the same tactic, MS has a fairly unique ability to drive companies to the wall due to its dominance. I think it's long overdue [img]smile.gif[/img]

What interests me is that we never hear from the likes of Winzip - I know I've certainly used it a lot less since XP came out.

[philip]

Now let's see why it's stupid. The fine was for this:

European Competition Commissioner Mario Monti ruled that Microsoft had failed to provide to rivals information that they needed to compete fairly in the market for server software and that the company has been offering Windows on the condition that it come bundled with Windows Media Player, stifling competition.

For not giving info on their server stuff: That's closed source software. And the other thing, why the hell can't a company that makes a desktop environment include everything it wants in it? Why wouldn't it be fair to have this included? Do other companies offer better software? The only thing that is better than WMP I used is WinAmp but especially quicktime, realplayer etc. should zip it and create good software. I'd call creating a less used and less popular music format and then complain it's unfair M$ has a program that plays the popular formats. That M$ would include other company's software in the install didn't help them which is why I think the EU is just trying to be annoying.

[shamrock_uk]

i tried to think of a real world comparison for what MS is doing, but couldn't. This could represent my lack of imagination, but then again, it might illustrate the uniqueness of this situation.

Microsoft doesn't have the right to closed-source software when it infringes on the consumer's rights. Somebody who has the bulk of their music collection unwittingly in .wma format is going to get one heck of a shock when they try to download these to an mp3 player for example.

By using proprietry formats, and forcing the uninformed user to use them, Microsoft actively stifles competition. Trying to convince my girlfriend to use Winamp after we'd both been beating Windows Media Player with sticks to try and get it to make some album adjustment that should've been simple is a case in point. She wasn't willing to even consider it, because it was made by Microsoft and came with Windows and told me that "its ok when you know how to use it".

My comments that software should be intuitive seemed to fall by the wayside...

I agree with you about the server stuff - if you're running a server you should be knowledgable enough to make an informed decision (and shouldn't pick Windows Server in any case [img]tongue.gif[/img] )


They're not being asked to reveal the source code of their entire software in any case - simply the formats and standards that they use, to allow other companies to design software that can coexist.

Closed source software is ideally what a small company would use to protect an innovative idea and enable it to profit from it, therefore allowing it to survive in the business world.

Microsoft uses closed source for precisely the opposite reasons: to lock users into its software and formats, to prevent them from switching when other products appear that are more innovative, thereby squashing other businesses which would have survived and prospered under perfect competition.

It's simply monopoly power at its most perverse...

[ 01-29-2005, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[philip]

I don't know where to really draw the line there. I'd think it could also be that users let themselves be locked in. And seriously why wouldn't you want to do that cause you paid for it.

I still don't think it's only M$'s fault. They supply the desktop center and people like buy it. Then why complain about it when there are options around. Or why punish m$ when it's actually the user's ignorance. Some people don't want to be informed even a little bit about computers it looks like. Then I think it's not M$'s fault if they have a complete music in wma when they should have just gottne a program that does it right to mp3 for example. Those programs do run on windows as well. The way windows is built up will always have some troubles as will other OSs have their own.

[philip]

BTW I understand it's a monopoly but on the other hand I don't think you should punish it that hard on small things why not say what you really don't like about it but I guess then they can't do anything about it at all.

[shamrock_uk]

Yeah the line is certainly a difficult one to draw. I guess they focus on little things because legally they can only focus on those specific items which have been complained about by the affected companies. Taking a more general 'broadside' would be much more dubious.

It's an interesting point you make about other programmes still being able to run - I think it was last year (maybe 2 years ago) when Microsoft deliberately included buggy older versions of 3rd party software with windows to give the impression that it was broken. Also their websites are very fond of feeding deliberately broken pages to other browsers that they disapprove of in the hope of making users believe the same thing. Its about time someone took them to task, even if they are forced to tackle the more 'mundane' issues which might seem not central to the debate.

[ 01-29-2005, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Azred]

I can understand the argument that Microsoft has--and continues--stifled its competition, but every major corporation in every industry tries to do the same thing. Why is Microsoft so universally hated? Is it because they are the biggest, richest, and most powerful? I think it all boils down to jealousy--the other companies are envious of Microsoft's success.

There is no reason Microsoft should be forced to reveal any closed-source code for any of its products. There is no reason for Microsoft to have to un-bundle Media Player or Internet Explorer from Windows. Many of the cases that have been brought against Microsoft over the last few years are simply frivolous.

This ties in with another phenomenon I have noticed in that last few years--the increase of shows like "The Weakest Link" or "Big Brother" where players vote off the person they like the least. These shows foster an atmosphere of "destroy the one who is the best" rather than congratulating someone for being able to win at a contest. Pure, childish evny, it is--the desire to drag someone else down to pull yourself up. (wow--what an off-topic rant that was [img]tongue.gif[/img] )

Don't get me wrong; I am not always Microsoft's biggest fan. However, I don't have all the "blue screens of death" that many people get and neither do I suffer negatively from the frequent security holes in Microsoft products. Thus, I really have no complaints aginst the company or its products.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Azred: I can understand the argument that Microsoft has--and continues--stifled its competition, but every major corporation in every industry tries to do the same thing. Why is Microsoft so universally hated? Is it because they are the biggest, richest, and most powerful? I think it all boils down to jealousy--the other companies are envious of Microsoft's success.

I agree completely about most of that - they are targeted because they are so successful. I'm not sure its envy, but generally large companies operate in an oligopolistic kind of market - with the exception of utility companies, its only really microsoft that actually is in a completely monopolistic situation. To anybody with the goal of a market economy this is something that is definitely not optimal and therefore must be dealt with by policy-makers. Other companies don't get the attention because they're not as much of a threat to the operation of efficient markets.

[ 01-29-2005, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]