Microsoft loses appeal versus the European commission.

[GuruMeditation]

I'd be much happier if the european commission actually sued a company that prevents you from using any alternative program to work with.

Say Apple and their iPod.

[Zerzera]

I hope you don't think that I'm coming down on you Zerz, partially because this is actually a semi-decent conversation. The problem I have is that I live in this country that's all too quick to pull the trigger on lawsuits, especially one where the defendant is rich and would more than likely just pay out. I worry about us (as humans) when actual creativity and innovation is trumped by someone out to make a quick buck just because they don't want to put the actual WORK into something.

I didn't mind having this conversation at all either. We will never totally agree on this and will totally disagree on some points, but at least I can see what you are trying to say.

[MetalHeadz]

so if one company has gained over 95% of a market it means there is no longer a free market.

If a company gains above 25% market share it is no longer a free market. The very concept of a free market is impossible infact.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Microsoft has a monopoly. Go into any main computer shop and ask for a PC that runs anything other than Microsoft OS. Their market share -unlike Chevy- is a monopoly. So they aren't allowed to take any anti-competitive actions.

But that's my whole point--it's NOT a monopoly. It's true that there are few players in the PC OS field, but they're not the only ones, nor are you compelled by any other choice other than your own to buy their product. There are other choices, freely available. If you don't buy the the other products, it's only you who are to blame. I'm tired of everyone playing the victim on this subject, when really the only person who's at fault is the person pointing the finger.

What I was trying -to troll- to was to say that either it's the shops fault, or they are forced to.

I think the practice you're referring to is where MS has paid people like Dell to offer MS-only products. Yes, that's kind of shady, but you don't have to buy a Dell now, do you?

How much time, money and energy does an average Joe have to buy a PC?

How much time do I have to shop for clothes? If I wanted something right now, I suppose I could go down to Old Navy and pick up some jeans. Those jeans would be quick and easy to procure, but I may not be happy with how long they last.

Or, being a non-brain-dead consumer, I could do a little research and find a better vendor, thereby maybe paying a little more but getting a better overall product.

How many reliable people does he know that can guarantee him the service of those shops when he doesn't happen to live in your suburb where 90% has graduated from College or University?

And that's why that person would buy a Dell with something preloaded--it makes tech support actually feasible.

About any OS would do for him, believe me.

I couldn't disagree more with this.

Yet any of the shops he will go to will sell him Microsoft. Which isn't a problem, because Microsoft has the best and most complete OS in the world. You don't even have to buy third party software anymore, because they can't run as well on a Microsoft OS as their own bundled products -they took care of that-.

All facetiousness aside, MS still has a lot of things that they AREN'T the best at, and a LOT of BIG competitors (Adobe, Firefox, etc) who are doing it "better than the big guy." And again, no one's stopping ANYONE from just plain making something that's better.

I hope you don't think that I'm coming down on you Zerz, partially because this is actually a semi-decent conversation. The problem I have is that I live in this country that's all too quick to pull the trigger on lawsuits, especially one where the defendant is rich and would more than likely just pay out. I worry about us (as humans) when actual creativity and innovation is trumped by someone out to make a quick buck just because they don't want to put the actual WORK into something.

[Zerzera]

Sorry for trolling
Microsoft has a monopoly. Go into any main computer shop and ask for a PC that runs anything other than Microsoft OS. Their market share -unlike Chevy- is a monopoly. So they aren't allowed to take any anti-competitive actions.

What I was trying -to troll- to was to say that either it's the shops fault, or they are forced to. Take a look at the market of the PC, who are the big players there? How much time, money and energy does an average Joe have to buy a PC? How many reliable people does he know that can guarantee him the service of those shops when he doesn't happen to live in your suburb where 90% has graduated from College or University?
About any OS would do for him, believe me. Yet any of the shops he will go to will sell him Microsoft. Which isn't a problem, because Microsoft has the best and most complete OS in the world. You don't even have to buy third party software anymore, because they can't run as well on a Microsoft OS as their own bundled products -they took care of that-. Unless you go to a specialized, or obscure, shop, you'd expect to have brand independent products, even in technology that isn't so modern anymore.

Let's leave it at that. You are right, I shouldn't buy my PC from Dell, Hewlett-Packard or Compaq.
Bad job EC, nothing will change.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

It's hard to me to decide what side you are on Conc, because some of your statements justify the EC's act.

I'm on the side of computer-literate people who know that you can put anything on a PC that you want--it all depends on how much work you want to put into it. Want a PC with no software at all loaded? Fine, build your own or hire the 6th grader down the street to build one FOR you. It's just hard for me to swallow that people are so ridiculous about this ONE sect of things that are bundled. Are people pissed that when you buy a Chevy that you get a Chevy motor bundled in? An OS is integral into making a computer run--if you sell computers without an OS, then Grandpa Joe who buys a computer will bitch because what he bought doesn't run straight out of the box.

(Yes, I understand that you could sell it as an option, but a lot of major OEMs already do that. What's the big deal? If you don't want the OS, you DON'T HAVE TO BUY IT IF YOU KNOW WHERE TO SHOP.)

And that's why you should be able to chose a product that does! Because now everything is all-in the PC you buy.

Again, not necessarily. It's about the consumer not being a dipshit if he/she doesn't want something. It's not like there aren't other options out there. THERE ARE.

Normally that's a good thing; Dell and others can sell you cheap standardized products. But it's all-in-microsoft on some level.

And where is Microsoft saying that you can't reload any PC with any other OS or software? Who's stopping you? Just because AOL also is preloaded on my new Dell doesn't mean that I'm going to (or HAVE to) use them for an ISP.

It's very hard to pick a brand that feels like it fits you better because you are already paying for the Microsoft products when you buy a PC.

Look, if I bought a boxed copy of Windows and it didn't come with some sort of simple image-manipulation program (just an example, I could say "web browser," "word processor," or any other thing), I would feel ripped off. So where do you draw the line? At what point can't Microsoft put things into their OS that are box-standard in other OSes? Should they be hobbled strictly because they've gained more market share than anyone else?

Microsoft OWNS the market

That's the point though, they DON'T. You're not forced to deal with them if you don't want to. Don't want MS products? Fine, go buy a Mac or get a naked machine and load Linux/BSD/whatever. I have yet to see an actual GOOD explanation of how MS somehow forces you to buy their products. There are MANY options out there for working around them.

Which brings up an interesting point--why don't people use them? Well, at least partially it's because the alternatives don't fulfill the needs that MS products provide. So again, MS is punished for fulfilling needs? It just doesn't make sense. No one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use IE, Word or Visual Studio.

they force themselves upon the 'professionals' that should pick a PC for you that works for you. You go to a professional that will always tell you to go for a microsoft product because it's all there is?

I'm not quite getting your meaning, but the IT professionals that I know aren't completely stymied by some sort of digital wasteland, where MS is the only option. Again, there ARE other options out there, it just depends on how nicely you want all the programs on your computer to play in concert. People choose MS office products because you can seamlessly take things inbetween them. People choose Adobe graphics packages because again, they all work seamlessly to perform multiple tasks. There's NOTHING stopping someone from making a better product other than some Eeyore sitting in the corner saying "I can't do it."

Mac is about the only computer that comes with it's own OS? They have a market share of? ~5%?

Again, though, who cares about them having a smaller market share? Macs are almost worse, because I can't just load OS X on any PC (without tinkering), even though the electronics are exactly the same. Why should I have to buy their overpriced hardware to use the software I want! I WANT TO SUE SOMEONE!

About every PC sold, no matter what brand, comes with Microsoft OS. With Microsoft OWNING the market there is no way you can penetrate the existing market, unless you invent something that's better than a PC of course (and a laptop is a PC here).

Not true. Again, you can always build your own, and OEMs have already toyed around with selling naked PCs. It's bullshit to think that someone couldn't make something better and no one would buy it. People aren't completely fucking retarded, and if someone could show them something better than what they're currently using, I have no doubt they could unseat Microsoft.

But I would very much like it when I go to a shop to buy a PC, and I can actually decide what OS suits me and then decide if I want to pay for a load of programs or that I don't need them.

And I'm still not seeing where you absolutely CAN'T buy/build a machine with no OS. You CAN. CAN CAN CAN. Just because you're not a discerning shopper doesn't mean that the person making it easy is robbing you.

It's very nice for Microsoft that they put a lot of money in developing a Media Player, but I don't like the fact that I had to pay for it to be included Microsoft XP professional while I had to pay for my Winamp copy to play music the way I want it.

But you're not forced to use it! Would you rather you got Windows that had absolutely NO functionality outside of basic file copying/moving/manipulation? Do you have any idea how many average people would be pissed if they bought a Dell, set it up, and then could do nothing until they downloaded hundreds of megs of software to make it actually DO something? If that's what you want them to do, why does Apple get to bundle stuff strictly because they have less of a market share? Linux too!

Look, here's why it's retarded: If Dell offered a PC with no OS preloaded, then you'd have Joe Sixpack buying it because it was "cheaper." He'd get the thing delivered, then try loading his pirated copy of Windows (or Linux, or whatever really). When his untrained hand couldn't get it to load, he'd call Dell and complain that his new computer "isn't working."

By preloading Windows, it at least narrows down what could actually be going wrong. If you didn't narrow it down, then the price of the computer would skyrocket, since that OEM would now have to hire LOTS more tech support to handle the volume of dipshits calling in.

What you're basically saying is that you want the best of both worlds--something's that just NOT gonna happen in the OEM PC market.

[Fluffz]

another punch in your guts mainstream conformity. Mc Donalds, YOU ARE NEXT!

[Zerzera]

It's hard to me to decide what side you are on Conc, because some of your statements justify the EC's act.

Conversely, don't make the mistake to think that a third party company has it all figured out and has a better product. I'm not saying that MS is doing everything right, since they aren't, I'm just saying that everyone's looking for a profit--no one's making things just to make your life better.

And that's why you should be able to chose a product that does! Because now everything is all-in the PC you buy. Normally that's a good thing; Dell and others can sell you cheap standardized products. But it's all-in-microsoft on some level. It's very hard to pick a brand that feels like it fits you better because you are already paying for the Microsoft products when you buy a PC.
EDIT: creating a new market of course, not penetrating one

Because most people aren't smart enough to know how to load another browser, let alone know that you could? Seriously, I'd rather have a default that sucked ass then no default and have to have a "professional" install something else. The IE thing is kind of retarded, since every modern OS is bundled with a browser.

Same thing as my brewery/bars example. The company you buy a PC already picked for you, and since Microsoft OWNS the market, they force themselves upon the 'professionals' that should pick a PC for you that works for you. You go to a professional that will always tell you to go for a microsoft product because it's all there is? Meanwhile you already payed for the bundled software, so picking another program for certain tasks is paying double.
This is how the free market works, and that's why we shouldn't have a totally free market, and there is no free market anywhere.

The IE example was only about intellectual property, not about Microsoft having a monopoly.

A while ago (it may still be the case), every Mac sold was bundled with Safari. Safari sucked major asshole, and wasn't really any more compatible or bug-free than IE. Did anyone go after Apple? No. Has anyone since? Not really. Oh shit guys, iPhone and the new iPod Touch have standard pre-loaded browsers! How's MS gonna compete with a standard browser on that phone?! I smell a lawsuit!

Mac is about the only computer that comes with it's own OS? They have a market share of? ~5%? About every PC sold, no matter what brand, comes with Microsoft OS. With Microsoft OWNING the market there is no way you can penetrate the existing market, unless you invent something that's better than a PC of course (and a laptop is a PC here).


Forget about the IE thing, I was talking about Intellectual Property and how, while it protects innovators, blocks innovation based on innovations.
I know that a product doesn't have to be perfect, but intellectual property means nothing more than free market for the ones that can afford it. Creativity for the ones that can afford to buy the pillars of their creativity.

I can understand what your point is, I know there is no such thing as a perfect product. Anything that's made by human hands is by definition unfit for every human. But I would very much like it when I go to a shop to buy a PC, and I can actually decide what OS suits me and then decide if I want to pay for a load of programs or that I don't need them.
It's very nice for Microsoft that they put a lot of money in developing a Media Player, but I don't like the fact that I had to pay for it to be included Microsoft XP professional while I had to pay for my Winamp copy to play music the way I want it.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Don't make the mistake to think that the most successful company has the best product and is by definition the best for the consumer.

Conversely, don't make the mistake to think that a third party company has it all figured out and has a better product. I'm not saying that MS is doing everything right, since they aren't, I'm just saying that everyone's looking for a profit--no one's making things just to make your life better.

Look for instance at Internet Explorer, it had a market share of over 95%, yet it was outdated and most exploitable. You can discuss which browser was better, or if there was a better browser, but it still stands that for most people another browser wasn't an option.
Why?

Because most people aren't smart enough to know how to load another browser, let alone know that you could? Seriously, I'd rather have a default that sucked ass then no default and have to have a "professional" install something else. The IE thing is kind of retarded, since every modern OS is bundled with a browser.

A while ago (it may still be the case), every Mac sold was bundled with Safari. Safari sucked major asshole, and wasn't really any more compatible or bug-free than IE. Did anyone go after Apple? No. Has anyone since? Not really. Oh shit guys, iPhone and the new iPod Touch have standard pre-loaded browsers! How's MS gonna compete with a standard browser on that phone?! I smell a lawsuit!

Like Neelie Kroes said, they just don't want to have a company own such a large portion of the market, because no one will try to penetrate a market that is owned like that, or will find any investors for that matter.

Why? Because they couldn't convince anyone that they could do it better? I don't think any market has a product that is so refined that it can't be improved upon, and software is definitely not in that category. IE's far from perfect, and someone can always build a better mousetrap (to mix metaphors, but whatever, this thread's a shitbox). Wanna know why IE does so well, outside of being packaged? Because it performs well enough that most people don't actively search out alternatives. Should you have to? As far as I've ever encountered, no MS police have ever come over to my house and kicked me in the nuts for having multiple browsers loaded--it's not like there's anything stopping me.

Congrats Europe, you're becoming more ludicrously litigious (like us) every day.

[Ewan]

Great so now even MORE stupid people's computers are going to be filled with crap like Quicktime and Realplayer.

[Noah]

Your point with IE is very valid, Zerz. I couldn't manige without Firefox today.

However, something has to be a default program. If you got Windows without alot of the programs you had today, you'd get a Windows that would be a worse product. To even it up, you'd either have to strip Windows from programs that other developers sells (media player, explorer, just to mention a few), or let the other developers get their programs into the Microsoft bundle. If you'd have to buy Windows, which included the competition on all fields, then you'd have to pay more for the bundle to pay the other companies. Either you, or Microsoft or would have to pay them.

Do you think a 60 year old woman would care to explore all the different programs to satisfy her needs to pay the bills and check her mail? Those users would never think of downloading and installing a program that has a few extra functions, and another design. They wouldn't even touch a program that they hadn't heard of, even if it came bundled. My friends stephdad is afraid of computers, he looks at it as super expensive high tech and doesn't let anyone near his comp. Even if Bill Gates stood in his room and told him that IE sucked, and that Firefox was better, he'd cling on to IE.

Most of the non-geek users barely knows about any other alternatives to anything, even their OS, because they never buy computer magazines, or bother to check it up on the internet. It's just a bills/mail checking machine.

[Zerzera]

The laws are there to prevent companies from exploiting their monopoly, which they should do, and is needed. However, it seems like most of the cases that is raised with this law is more like a witch hunt. There is nothing in Windows that prevents you to get other media players than Windows Media Player. From the outcome of this case, it seems like there would be no difference if Windows had put in codes to prevent any other media players to be installed into the OS. This is FAR, FAR from the case of what Windows is doing.

Yes, it's sort of a witch hunt against monopolies. Basically the EU doesn't want one single company to own an entire market. Or have the main players in one single segment have treaties in such a way that they act like one company towards the consumer.
Don't make the mistake to think that the most successful company has the best product and is by definition the best for the consumer.
Look for instance at Internet Explorer, it had a market share of over 95%, yet it was outdated and most exploitable. You can discuss which browser was better, or if there was a better browser, but it still stands that for most people another browser wasn't an option.
Why? Because there weren't enough Opera commercials on television to tell you that there was another browser than the one that came with your PC?
Like Neelie Kroes said, they just don't want to have a company own such a large portion of the market, because no one will try to penetrate a market that is owned like that, or will find any investors for that matter.
They just force Microsoft to facilitate, it's sad for Microsoft, but it's better for the Europeans, and we happen to be the market.

[Mantra-Slider]

We saw the same with McClaren earlier this week for some dubiously small crime.

lol what, are you serious? jesus fucking god if you are serious.

[Zerzera]

"How is Microsoft inflicting punishment? Does it force anyone to buy its bundled product? Does it forcibly prevent anyone from using Quicktime? Is it not obvious that the EU directly is punishing the consumer by intervening with Microsoft? Who will bear the humongous legal fees and fines, at least in part, if not the consumer? Who will lose out from the chill on future innovation if not the consumer? And isn’t the EU directly responsible for all of this harm?

What utter hypocrisy and stupidity are on parade here.

Are we supposed to pity Microsoft’s rivals? Are we supposed to reward their incompetence? The court opined that selling media software with Windows had damaged rivals. If it was a successful product, what else could we expect but that rivals should be damaged? It is a good sign that they have been damaged. It means that customers were benefited. The rivals do not own the customers. They cannot make them buy their products, not unless the EU intervenes and tries to raise Microsoft’s costs."

nt

Microsoft is sued by the European Commission, which protects the rights of the European citizens, as you can read on their website the fine will be 'returned to the citizens' by deducting it from their contribution to the EU.

There is only so little people educated in computer science, you can't expect a painter to know what's the best / suitable product, so if one company has gained over 95% of a market it means there is no longer a free market.
You make the mistake of separating politics from economics and trade. Our governments and commissions are really representatives of us, the consumers. They are installed, by us, to study these cases and undertake action to protect our interests.

I myself am against intellectual property, or at least unlimited intellectual property, to me it shows the fallacy of the human race.
It is very well possible for two people to make the same connections and have the same creative idea. But only one with enough money would be able to protect this idea.
Bill Gates is for intellectual property, but then Microsoft has the money, the power and recourses to overcome intellectual property.
But yet, look at the Eolas Case.. Look at the features in IE7 and Vista, can you really call that renewing and innovating? Nowadays marketing makes most of the product.

Like Heineken beer versus 'cheap supermarket beer' (Aldi). First the panel had to rate the beer based on the brand, Heineken had a high mark, the Aldi brand had a low mark.
But in the blind test Heineken scored remarkably lower than the beer of the Aldi.
Yet Heineken 'owns' most of the Dutch bars and has a lot of power over these bars. The main breweries of the EU were fined by the European Commission since we've been paying too much for their beer because of their illegal agreements.
Still, almost any bar gets supplied by these breweries, why?
You've been screwed over by your supplier but you stick to them? What's wrong here?

[Noah]

The laws are there to prevent companies from exploiting their monopoly, which they should do, and is needed. However, it seems like most of the cases that is raised with this law is more like a witch hunt. There is nothing in Windows that prevents you to get other media players than Windows Media Player. From the outcome of this case, it seems like there would be no difference if Windows had put in codes to prevent any other media players to be installed into the OS. This is FAR, FAR from the case of what Windows is doing.