EU warns Microsoft on Vista (Windows to be banned in Europe?)

Dow Jones MarketWatch ^ | March 29, 2006

[HAL9000]

Excerpt -

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- The European Union's top antitrust regulator has warned Microsoft Corp. it won't be allowed to sell its new Windows Vista operating system in Europe if it comes prepackaged with certain features, according to a Media report Wednesday.

The warning to Microsoft , already locked in a battle with the EU over its current operating system, came in a March 20 letter from Neelie Kroes, the EU's antitrust commissioner, The Wall Street Journal reported in its online edition. See Wall Street Journal story (subscription required).

The concerns, focusing on Internet browsers and software security functions, mirror the dispute over software packaged with Microsoft's current system, The Journal reported.

Microsoft said it wasn't aware of the March 20 letter to Chief Executive Steve Ballmer and couldn't comment.

~snip~

[HAL9000]

Preposterous headline, Hal... WINDOWS is absolutely, positively NOT going to be banned in Europe.

Don't be so pessimistic. It could happen.

[arthurus]

Are Europeans stupid because they are European

or

Are they European because they are stupid?

Yes, certainly so.

[6SJ7]

Windows Vista banned in Europe? When Islamo-facists take over the EU there will be no need for Windows Vista, Macs, cell phones, cameras, TV, music, etc. as they will all be banned under Sharia law.

[6SJ7]

Windows Vista banned in Europe? When Islamo-facists take over the EU there will be no need for Windows Vista, Macs, cell phones, cameras, TV, music, etc. as they will all be banned under Sharia law.

[AFreeBird]

It's ridiculous to argue the OS/browser bundling point anymore. Internet use accounts for the majority of computer use. Hence, a browser is as much a part of the OS as the OS itself.

I think you're confusing integration with bundling. It's perfectly okay to bundle software with your OS as long as it can be installed or uninstalled at the users will.

What M$ did with Internet Exploder is different. It and its underlying technologies (ActiveX) were interwoven into the OS, thereby ensuring that IE would be on every desktop. You cannot remove IE from windows without breaking windows.

Now in a perfect world, having such tight integration might be a good thing, but we live in anything but a perfect world, and having an application that cruises the web so tightly integrated to the OS is asking for trouble. And trouble they have.

So, after 10 years, IE 7 is supposedly going to be independent of the OS.

[ShadowAce]

[N3WBI3]

This is wrong, MS should be able to package whatever it wants, so long as it does not prevent resellers from putting something different on..

[gondramB]

"The concerns, focusing on Internet browsers and software security functions...

Hmmm, don't Mac's and many Linux distros come bundled with these "illegal" features?"


I suspect its a situation where microsoft as a serious repeat offender has previous consent decrees they have to comply with.

[Tribune7]

Please tell me that thing is from 1983 and the web address has been Photoshopped on.

[zeugma]

Yes, Linux comes with 2 browsers firefox and konkequesrdor sp?

Well depending upon your distribution, you can have 5 or six, from full featured browsers, to slimmed down text-only clients. Lots of choices.

I'm of two minds on this whole 'bundling' issue with microsoft.

First, having the EU, or FedGov for that matter telling microsoft what software they can or can't include in their product rubs me wrong in a major way.

OTOH, we've seen microsoft take advantage of its monopoly ("monopoly" is a legal term of art, not a moral or ethical condition) position to drive other companies out of business.  One major example is that of Netscape. They had a browser that they were selling as a going business. Then microsoft makes IE available for free, essentially gutting the market because of their monopoly position.  Granted, Netscape made bad decisions as well, but they'd had their oxygen supply cut off anyway.

Now microsoft is finding themselves in a position where their cash cow is being threatened by products that are essentially free as well. I see it as a wonderful example of karma, among other things. That many of these free products are arguably superior in many if not most ways to anything microsoft has to offer is basically icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned.

The software industry is changing. Like buggy whip manufacturers, they are going to have to change with it or they'll eventually be buried.
 

[Golden Eagle]

Now microsoft ALL US software companies are finding themselves in a position where their cash cow is being threatened by products that are essentially free as well socialists across the globe not just the EU.

Patched.

[zeugma]

Here comes Johnny One Note making posts, like anyone here gives a damn about what the troll has to say.

[Don Joe]

What M$ did with Internet Exploder is different. It and its underlying technologies (ActiveX) were interwoven into the OS, thereby ensuring that IE would be on every desktop. You cannot remove IE from windows without breaking windows.

What they did was to work towards having a single rendering/display engine, rather than maintaining two separate "parallel" systems (one for the desktop, one for the browser running on the desktop). In a sane world, this is what's known as "makes sense" engineering. Why duplicate the effort, when a single rendering engine would handle both tasks?

The advantages are obvious: everything from resource juggling to QA concerns stands to benefit from having your developers working on one platform rather than being forced (by law rather than "choice") to maintain two separate platforms in the same box.

It looks like the lawyers won, doesn't it. Viva la revolucion, blah blah blah.

[Redcloak]

So who's the bad guy today: The Chinese or the Bilderbergers?

[Golden Eagle]

If you cared as much about the current US leadership position in the world as much as you cared about getting free software you would.

Free software across the globe is the UN dream, supplanting the current US dominance of the industry. It's why they've created an entire division to push it, just as you and others constantly do yourselves.

[BlueStateDepression]

This is wrong, MS should be able to package whatever it wants, so long as it does not prevent resellers from putting something different on..

So when you package a song on a Cd and send it to me, the reseller, I should be able to add whatever I want to the song or to the CD and you have no say about wether I can do that or not?

I find that quite backwards.....

[ShadowAce]

So when you package a song on a Cd and send it to me, the reseller, I should be able to add whatever I want to the song or to the CD and you have no say about wether I can do that or not?

Here's my take on that--

A CD is a standalone product. A computer is a product that contains many components--the OS being one of them. Applications are another component of a PC. Why not allow resellers to add apps to a PC that they are selling? The OS shouldn't have any say in the matter.

Now, if I package a song and allow you to resell the song, then yes, you should have the right to add other songs/content to any CD you are selling with that song on it. But you cannot touch the song.

Zeugma wasn't advocating touching the OS--merely adding other apps to the PC they are selling.

[Don Joe]

Interesting keyboard layout. Apparently, that device is aimed at creating a generation of "cannot type!" citizens.

[Don Joe]

OTOH, we've seen microsoft take advantage of its monopoly ("monopoly" is a legal term of art, not a moral or ethical condition) position to drive other companies out of business. One major example is that of Netscape. They had a browser that they were selling as a going business. Then microsoft makes IE available for free, essentially gutting the market because of their monopoly position. Granted, Netscape made bad decisions as well, but they'd had their oxygen supply cut off anyway.

Oh, please, let's look at the whole picture, in context, shall we?

Netscape was for all intents and purposes itself given away for free. It was an early example of "viral marketing", and the result was to mop the floor with Mosaic, which, interestingly enough, was a commercial product, and, it formed the core of the Netscape code base!

So, essentially, Netscape took Mosaic, massaged it a tad, rebranded it, and gave it away -- thus basically killing Mosaic's market.

This is where it gets really interesting.

You see, Internet Explorer is also built on the Mosaic code base. The big difference is that Microsoft paid for the right to use that code! Look at the "About" box in IE, and you will see the following:

---

Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Distributed under a licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc.

---

Golly gee.

To recap:
* Mosaic creates a product, and markets it.
* Netscape takes that code, and gives it away, creating a monopoly (at that point, Nescape was THE dominant browser, owning most of the market)
* Microsoft BUYS the rights to the code, and also gives their version away
* Netscape, for the first time faced with competition, cries foul, and goes running to the government for protection of their monopoly

In essence, Netscape accused Microsoft of having done to Netscape what Netscape did to Mosaic. The main difference of course is that while Netscape simply took the code base, Microsoft PAID for it.

Only in America...

[BlueStateDepression]

OS should have a say when these additions comprimise security of the OS and thus its reputation.

How about I rephrase a bit. If I create an album and send it to you to resell, should you be able to add songs to that album? I mean my songs are on my album and when you add other songs that reflects on me right?