EU: Sorry Microsoft, got no conference room and time to hear defese...

[markwolfe Veteran]

The EU is behind then. All commercial operating systems and most free ones are bundled with a browser, too. Time to bust out that antitrust hammer against Apple, the Linux distros, etc. too, yeah? Except that's not what this is about. This is about greed and Microsoft being a big target.

Words cannot express how completely wrong you are to bring up Linux into the argument.

Linux includes¹ a variety² of optional³ packages.

Definitions:

¹ "includes", as the packages are all third-party, not coming from the same company/organization in an attempt to subvert standards-compliance and promote their own broken (Microsoft calls it 'extended') implementation. See also: MS Java, MSHTML

² "variety", as CHOICES are provided. Systems with Firefox also include alternative browsers from other sources/parties. For example, epiphany or konqueror are typical of Gnome and KDE desktops, respectively. Microsoft does not include a variety. Only the software that they also created (i.e. "bundled".)

³ "optional", as in completely removable (and even not-installable by selection of installation options) by the very design and intent of the package management system. Don't want Firefox, use the package manager and remove it, just like any other application. And it is really gone, not like Microsoft's "removal" of IE.

Not sure what you thought Linux "bundled", but I would be very interested in hearing your reasoning. ;)

[Growled Member]

I actually think that you should go look it up :-

Monopoly - exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market

Monopoly - the exclusive possession or control of something.

Microsoft, by definition, never had a monopoly. They did not have exclusive control as you had other operating systems on the market.

None of that matters. The courts have found Microsoft guilty of being an illegal monopoly on two different continents. So legally they are a monopoly. As a monopoly they have to follow a different set of rules than everyone else has to follow.

[I am Reid]

Can anyone defend what the EU did here or not? So far it looks like no one can.

[iamwhoiam]

Can anyone defend what the EU did here or not? So far it looks like no one can.

I'm not from that area of the world but I think the EU are a bunch of money grubbers. Fining Microsoft for the inclusion of a freaking browser in the OS is just plain stupidity and greed. Pretty soon the GDP of the EU will be Microsoft money.

The EU says it's all about consumer choice and protecting the consumer. Bull----. As I recall the Windows N versions that they mandated to be produced was a flop. Why? The consumer didn't want it.

[markwolfe Veteran]

Can anyone defend what the EU did here or not? So far it looks like no one can.

From what I have read, it sounds like Microsoft is of the mind that they will only attend if they have senior commission officials in audience. It also seems that the senior officials don't attend these individual case hearings.

If so, then Microsoft is being a whiny demanding little brat for canceling because they aren't getting the special audience they feel they demand.

If the above situation regarding typical audiences is not true, then the EU is being a pushy overbearing butt-wipe for scheduling this for when senior members are known to be out.

I can not find enough supporting evidence that shows that senior commission members aren't normally in personal attendance at this level. But I can find no evidence yet at all that says they are normally in attendance and are not so for this Microsoft case.

Either way, I don't much care. Both sides are posturing and trying to get away with as much as they can. Neither side is the pure innocent in this. Next news item, please...

EDIT: One source example: http://government.zdnet.com/?p=4840

[Mathiasdm]

Why because you said so?

No, monopolies are in fact bad for the market.

Microsoft, by definition, never had a monopoly. They did not have exclusive control as you had other operating systems on the market.

In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

Come on, folks, this is basic economics. What's the use in discussing things like this without keeping these things in mind?

[The Grasshopper]

Windows 7 Full Home Premium Edition. EU$450. and so on...

That should fix it. pass the bill on to the European consumer.

that's what American companies do here.

Then let's see what happens, because MS can charge whatever they want for their products.

Even as a monoploy they can pass on the costs of this. Oil and energy companies do it all the time.

Edited May 23, 2009 by The Grasshopper

[toadeater]

i have a good idea !

"Microsoft should remove TCP/IP stack

it is anti competitive ,it stifle invotation , since i cant no sell you 200$ per liscne per os installation !"

what do you think guys ? :p

The TCP/IP stack is part of the kernel, you can't remove it. Browsers, media players, and other optional apps can be removed. The reason there is so much focus on browsers is because through the browser MS is able to control industry standards by leveraging the Windows OS monopoly, it's not because anyone is demanding that every bundled Windows app be removed.

Imagine if MS had succeeded in making IE the de facto browser standard, what would other OSes do? IE isn't open-source. What would happen to competing plugins like Flash? MS would break them. We already had a taste of that a few years back, when so many websites were IE-only, and required Windows Media Player for video. What that meant was only a Windows PC could access the site. By controlling internet standards MS was enforcing its Windows monopoly. That was blatantly stifling innovation and the entire planet! Things have gotten so much better now that IE isn't the standard anymore.

There is no other company that is in the position MS is in because of its 88% OS marketshare, that is why MS has to be treated as a unique case.

[Imran Hussain]

Still to this day it's practically impossible to buy a computer without Windows. Microsoft still has close to 100% of the market, and got there by force and dirty business tactics.

LOL? Seems like you still live IN the Windows 95 era. Check out Macs and Netbooks. You can be all anti-Microsoft you want to be, but just because the comeptition couldn't beat Microsoft doesn't mean you call their business tactics illegal.

It's not like they paid Intel and AMD to make there processors Windows-only and similarly with other hardware companies. The market is and was always wide open. The competition is at fault to not have made a better ecosystem for consumers. Period.

And yes, it's really funny. Opera, the company who used to make a 'paid' browser, and NEVER got any market share to boast about, and then Firefox came around for free, and got lots of market (even though IE was still bundled with Windows and Safari with OS X), which in turn made Opera put up their browser for free, and still couldn't get enough market share. So, this cheap tactic is their only hope to push their browser down consumer's throats. I used to like their browser, but no thanks. People would think thrice before using a browser that most of the websites are incompatible with. kthxbye

[statm1]

You can go there and download an upgrade to the IE that you already paid for as part of your Windows license, yes. I cannot believe that you're trying to argue this. You live in la-la-land if you think Microsoft does anything for free.

Seems like your the one in lala land. Have you been under a rock and never heard of Windows Live? A whole suite of applications that you can get for free and without having to pay for Windows first.

[HawkMan]

Seems like your the one in lala land. Have you been under a rock and never heard of Windows Live? A whole suite of applications that you can get for free and without having to pay for Windows first.

Obviusly they are part of the windows price as well...

which when you think of it, with all these live Suites, Morro and IE, and all their new version. Windows is actually rather cheap whgen you think about it :p

[Pallab]

I convinced that its Ms who is in the wrong after reading this.

[HawkMan]

I convinced that its Ms who is in the wrong after reading this.

a... blog.....

A blog on Opera's own network.... no really....

[MightyJordan]

I convinced that its Ms who is in the wrong after reading this.

Don't be. Opera are one of the companies bitching to the EU because people don't use their browser. They're obviously gonna be biased against Microsoft.

[hdood]

Seems like your the one in lala land. Have you been under a rock and never heard of Windows Live? A whole suite of applications that you can get for free and without having to pay for Windows first.

Windows Live? You mean programs like Messenger and Mail and Movie Maker that offer basic functionality that used to be part of the OS but was taken out for antitrust reasons? Yes, your money goes to pay for that too.

Also, I'm not quite sure what the point of downloading Windows software would be if you're not going to run it on Windows.

Obviusly they are part of the windows price as well...

which when you think of it, with all these live Suites, Morro and IE, and all their new version. Windows is actually rather cheap whgen you think about it :p

Vista HP retails for $200-250, I'm not sure if that really counts as "rather cheap" because they "throw in" a few mediocre utilities. Do you think Microsoft has people sitting around writing software for free? No, all the costs are recovered from the customers (incl. the public through millions of tax money).

I would have thought that this was so elementary that it wasn't even worth pointing out, but obviously some people think that Microsoft prints its own money or something.

[Zapadlo]

I convinced that its Ms who is in the wrong after reading this.

Yeah, just seems like opinions of a person who chooses to interpret facts in his own light. However does not introduce new facts to the argument.

[hdood]

And yes, it's really funny. Opera, the company who used to make a 'paid' browser, and NEVER got any market share to boast about, and then Firefox came around for free

Netscape used to be a "paid" browser too, and actually made a fair bit of money until Microsoft came along. The fact that only free open source software has been able to compete with Microsoft kind of confirms the fact that it's difficult to compete commercially with them. Not so much because Microsoft makes better software, but because they are able to release it for "free" (or offer other incentives if you go all Microsoft) and recover the costs indirectly elsewhere (such as getting paid for virtually every single computer that is sold) and use their brand and market dominance to make people pick their software. This is one of the dangers of a monopoly.

[HawkMan]

Netscape used to be a "paid" browser too, and actually made a fair bit of money until Microsoft came along. The fact that only free open source software has been able to compete with Microsoft kind of confirms the fact that it's difficult to compete commercially with them. Not so much because Microsoft makes better software, but because they are able to release it for "free" (or offer other incentives if you go all Microsoft) and recover the costs indirectly elsewhere (such as getting paid for virtually every single computer that is sold) and use their brand and market dominance to make people pick their software. This is one of the dangers of a monopoly.

The gold version of netscape cost money. The one with an editor, the browser did not.

[markwolfe Veteran]

Netscape used to be a "paid" browser too, and actually made a fair bit of money until Microsoft came along. The fact that only free open source software has been able to compete with Microsoft kind of confirms the fact that it's difficult to compete commercially with them. Not so much because Microsoft makes better software, but because they are able to release it for "free" (or offer other incentives if you go all Microsoft) and recover the costs indirectly elsewhere (such as getting paid for virtually every single computer that is sold) and use their brand and market dominance to make people pick their software. This is one of the dangers of a monopoly.

Although I don't always agree with your posts, I must say that this one really hits the nail on the head. :yes:

[fix-this!]

Windows 7 Full Home Premium Edition. EU$450. and so on...

i hope that's a guess at a price because i sure as hell would never pay that for ANY operating system or software. micro$oft would fail epically if they even tried to market 7 at as price like that the way the current state of the economy is.

[Akaruz]

Windows 7 Full Home Premium Edition. EU$450. and so on...

That should fix it. pass the bill on to the European consumer.

that's what American companies do here.

Then let's see what happens, because MS can charge whatever they want for their products.

Even as a monoploy they can pass on the costs of this. Oil and energy companies do it all the time.

I love the old American argument toward EU , just bill them or stop selling to the EU ( do you guys really think you would be were you are ( in the top ) if you only sold in the EU ? its like saying to a developer , please lets just do a NA release and frack the rest , we can survive

Do you think that MS doesnt do contracts with european goverments individually ? because its where it gets most of their money ?

For your information generally the prices in Europe are already stupid as in ( if it costs 450$ - it will be 450€ - no conversion :p ) ( Btw 450$ = 630€ )

just an example

GeForce GTX 295 w/ EVGA Backplate

In Europe = 545.00€

In the USA = $549.99

btw :

549.99 USD = 393.638 EUR

549.99 EUR = 768.446 USD

So you can see that American companies Already get their extra income just by selling to Europe ( do you really think they wantn to lose that ? )

I would love to see American companies like MS survive with only American minds , no South American , Asian , European or African minds that actually are the ones that sometimes have the best ideas ( no offense to American developers )

Why the frack do MS need a Senior there ? because it thinks its important ? and the world cant go on without them ?

Thank God this site its just for IT News and doesnt talk about US<->EU embargo's , import / export policies etc etc ( This to the guys who always blame the EU for fining the US companies )

[fix-this!]

GeForce GTX 295 w/ EVGA Backplate

In the USA = $549.99

:blink: is that a for real price?

[HawkMan]

:blink: is that a for real price?

Europe has a 25% VAT that all the people who complain about the prices like to forget/ignore.

They also like to forget that many European countries have mandatory 1 year warranty on everything and then on top of that 2 or 5 year(depending on what kind of product it is) manufacturing warranty against production faults. none of that if it breaks after 3 months and one day you're on your own crap.

The prices are still annoyingly high yes. But in in VAT and average higher wages and all the extra rules and consumer protections and it's a bit different story.

[Raa]

Microsoft should just say "Well, if we can't agree, we're immediately removing our software from being sold from all EU countries".

That'll stir 'em up! hehehe ;)

[hdood]

If I run a store somewhere in western Europe that imports and sells American products I am going to have to charge more than my US counterparts. It's simply unavoidable. I have to pay higher taxes, tolls, more rent, shipping and logistics to get the products here, wages for my employees, and so on. NVIDIA (or whoever) doesn't get this extra cash, it goes into the local economy.

You also can't just compare prices, it isn't that easy. $10 might turn out to be the same as $5 in the US when you take into account things income levels, price levels, cost of living, and so on. Now, it might still work out to be more expensive, but is it unreasonably more expensive when you consider the operating costs of my European company?

Microsoft should just say "Well, if we can't agree, we're immediately removing our software from being sold from all EU countries".

Yes, and then the EU should call their bluff and Microsoft would be pushed out of a market that is so big that it would send Microsoft into financial crisis. It's not the EU that is lucky that Microsoft feels like selling their products there, it's Microsoft that is lucky that they get to. They have to thread very carefully. Microsoft has a history of modifying or removing features (seen the clickable timezone map lately?) in Windows to avoid offending markets worth billions. They are not going to play with fire out of "principle" (they have none).

Edited May 24, 2009 by hdood