Windows 7 To Be "Thoroughly" Tested For Antitrust Compliance 364
CWmike writes "Technical advisers to the antitrust regulators who monitor Microsoft's compliance with the 2002 antitrust settlement will test Windows 7 'more thoroughly' than earlier versions of the operating system were tested, according to a new status report filed with the federal judge watching over the company. Microsoft is also facing renewed scrutiny from the EU, which two weeks ago filed preliminary charges against the company over bundling IE with Windows, and said more recently that Microsoft 'shields' IE from competition."
I am skeptical (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft's compliance with the 2002 antitrust settlement will test Windows 7 'more thoroughly' than earlier versions of the operating system were tested, according to a new status report filed with the federal judge watching over the company.
Wasn't this done for XP? If I cannot remove IE or Windows Media Player, then these folks will not have done their job.
But the better move would be to force Microsoft to use open formats for all their applications. That way, we all can be sure that alternative apps have the opportunity to work as required. The only hindrance here would be for programmers to "deliver."
Re:I am skeptical (Score:1, Insightful)
the better move would be to force Microsoft to use open formats for all their applications.
No, the better move would be to force Microsoft to open their formats.
Luckily enough, they've already done that. So go ahead and implement to your heart's content!
Re:The EU is just bashing an American company (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, by making sure other browsers are not [fully] supported by their web service applications, they are locking out competing, STANDARDS BASED, browsers and client machines including those running Firefox and Mac OS X. It is not merely an issue of web designers not making things compatible, but whole applications and applications interfaces are closed to anything other than MSIE.
But if they don't include IE... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I am skeptical (Score:1, Insightful)
I user IE exactly once on a new computer (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.getfirefox.com/ [getfirefox.com]
Has the world woken up? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now these people of power are waking up. It's not just the wining of nerds and does matter. Computers are like anything else competition is required or things become expensive and broken.
Closed source is broken anyway, but to have a company to make closed software on a closed platform, how can that ever be a level playing field?
Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a simple example: the embedded FTP client in IE that integrates with Windows Explorer. It's a good idea, a sound implementation, but why should it be denied to other browser makers? It's not like I didn't pay for Windows Explorer.
Contrary to what you might think, I would like W7 to do a good job. I would also like to have it work properly in diverse networks, and be able to deploy applications and shares across those networks without regard to OS. I would prefer installing IE8 not to break some of my old .NET applications when it doesn't interfere with similarly ancient Java apps. If it takes Neelie Kroes to make Microsoft do this, I say bring on Neelie Kroes. She's now up there on my "great women in IT" pedestal along with Rear-Admiral Grace Hopper.
Possible solution for whom? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But if they don't include IE... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I am skeptical (Score:5, Insightful)
You are wrong. Forcing them to "open their formats" is exactly the wrong approach. OOXML is the kind of thing you can expect to see in all of their published documentation and there is no liklihood that anyone would be able to faithfully implement anything they have published. But if there are known standards for, let's say, browsing the web, they should be prevented from writing apps that use the internet protocols in ways that are not standards compliant and they should be prevented from supporting only MSIE under such circumstances.
On the other hand, opening their formats is also important for immediate relief. I am thinking long term and future uses.
People don't upgrade from what they're given (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, according to MarketShare [hitslink.com], IE6 and Firefox 2/3 are roughly tied for market share (about 20% to each). TheCounter [thecounter.com] says that IE6 has 34% of the market while Firefox has 17%, and even W3Schools [w3schools.com] says that IE6 still has about 20% of users.
The moral of this story is: lots of people don't upgrade. They don't even run Windows Update. They use the browser they got when they installed XP, and they probably don't even know anything else is out there.
This is why, whenever Microsoft ties an application to the operating system, the market suffers. It becomes really hard to compete in that space. Right now, nobody's making money selling a web browser that competes with the one that comes with Windows. This is the way it's been for more than a decade now. The antitrust action against Microsoft was nothing more than a slap on the wrist; it did nothing to restore competition.
If Microsoft is so interested in bundling high-quality apps with the operating system for the good of its users, then why haven't they bundled Microsoft Word?
Re:Oh yea, we'll test it really hard. (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I detest Windows in all forms, Windows 7 seems to be shaping up to be a half decent OS. Hate to have to admit it, but there it is.
Now all they need is a bash terminal, wget, vim, locate, grep, tail, touch, top, a package management system (emerge, apt, rpm - not really fussy), more text-based config files instead of a registry...
Re:I am skeptical (Score:3, Insightful)
Second.
I don't like/use IE or care for WMP (most media gets winamp'ed, only videos go for WMP, although I'll usually just put them on my BSD box and watch them in Noatun or Mplayer.
As for IE? It has it's uses... As the sibling posted - If lets you go and download Firefox (or other browser of choice) on a fresh system.
Having these on a system doesn't prevent you from using other software, they simply don't encourage you to do so. Preventing people from using other software should validly fall under anti-competitive, and can validly include paying people not to sell competitors products, or not dealing with people who do, not following published standards that the other use, and not publishing your standards (or not letting people use them for a reasonable price). However, not encouraging people to use another's product is not anti-competitive, that's just rational practice.
Re:I am skeptical (Score:5, Insightful)
Open Formats: Designed so anyone can use them, and is encouraged. Usually fairly easy to implement and can save a lot of time in development costs.
Opened Formats: Designed to be hard for other people to copy. Trying to implement them can be rather difficult as it was tightly integrated with their applications that use it. So the cost of implementing the Opened Format is almost as much as it would be to purchase the software or the library to use it from the original vender.
Re:But if they don't include IE... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mod down, positive review of Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The EU is just bashing an American company (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you please explain why Firefox supports innerHTML, considering it is a Microsoft invention
Because (successful) software developers are pragmatic more than they are pedantic. One only has to look at the relative successes of Linus Torvalds versus Richard Stallman as a prime example.
Microsoft also invented Ajax (well, they were the first to implement the XMLHttpRequest [wikipedia.org]). Just because the devil gives you a pony doesn't mean he still isn't evil. And it doesn't make the pony evil by proxy.
I think I should probably stick to car analogies.
*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not necessarily what is bundled or not. It's their #!@$@ business practices and closed APIs. I really don't give a crap if an alternate browser is on the system or not. What they should care about is that it is easy to put it on, remove the one you don't like, etc. You should be able to mix and match as you see fit.
This focus on 'bundling' has always annoyed me. Why should we force microsoft to bundle anything that they themselves didn't create? that's stupid. We definitely should look into their dealings with OEMs though! That whole forcing OS/2 out of the market with their exclusive contracts were not cool. Educate yourself on the real criminal behavior: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm [usdoj.gov]
To test for antitrust, they need simply test how easy it is to mix and match different components. If the OS is getting in the way of that, fine the hell out of them.
Re:I am skeptical (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I am skeptical (Score:1, Insightful)
I wondered how many comments it would take as I read through to get to something like this. You must be about the 1000th person to make these comments in the last few weeks.
how can I install Firefox without a default browser?
If you can't work this out, you shouldn't be using a computer
a/ OEM installs one or more browsers of *their* choice, which must not be influenced by MS incentives. As OEMs already install and support various non-MS software this would present no problem at all. I'm sure some OEMs would already be installing Firefox if MS din't threaten their discounts etc.
and/or
b/ (Particularly for non-OEM installs) MS is required to include a simple 'browser chooser' gui application which uses ftp or equivalent behind the scenes to get and install your chosen browser. MS is allowed to warn that browsers other than IE are not supported by them but by company x, y etc.
And don't quibble about the details, it's clearly doable.
For example: 'but they'd have to include links to every crappy little browser with spyware etc.'. Well then, charge each company that wants their browser on the 'chooser' (say) $5000 to have it independantly spyware vetted and listed. That would probably cut the list down to less than 5-10.
Other objections can be dismissed equally easily.
The usual 'I don't understand or want to understand the very basics of competition law' comment.
So, for the nth time:
MS has a *legally defined* OS monopoly (no it doesn't matter if *you* think they haven't got a monopoly; the EU, US etc. courts *do*). Apple and the various Linux distros do not have legally defined OS monopolies.
Under competition law it is illegal to use a monopoly in one area (OS) to create, attempt to create, sustain or attempt to sustain a monopoly in another area (browser). And no, it doesn't matter that MS's market share in the browser market is down to about 70%. It's their OS share that matters. And yes (as per below) a legally defined monopoly does not mean '100% of the market'.
You may not like or agree with this; maybe you think there should be no competition laws (even if that leads to no free market - this was *why* these laws were introduced in the first place). But it *is* the law and it looks as if the EU will actually attempt to get MS to comply with it.
Note that a legally defined monopoly can kick in at as low as about 25% of the market (e.g. 4 major companies carve a market 4 ways and shut out other competitors - that might be an illegal cartel as well). So, if Apple or (say) Ubuntu gets to as little as 25% of the OS market, they might be hit by these laws as well. Until then, they are free to bundle what they like because it is not legally deemed to have an adverse effect on competition.
Re:But if they don't include IE... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I am skeptical (Score:3, Insightful)
But the better move would be to force Microsoft to use open formats for all their applications
"But the better move would be to force Everyone to use Microsoft products for all their work"
"But the better move would be to force Everyone to eat Wheaties products for all their lives"
"But the better move would be to force Everyone to do what Uncle Sam wants for all their lives"
See the problem with forcing people/companies to do things? Regulation is important, but there needs to be a time where you gotta say "hold on this is overstepping". Put it this way - if you created a product (think time and money) for sale so you cuold make profit - how would you feel if someone came up to you and said "No sorry, you need to invest more time and money and configure your product the way *I* want it, not how you want it. BTW, you need to divulge any trade secrets you have. While you spent time/money developing these secrets and would like to make a profit, *WE* feel it would be better to give it out for free. Oh and btw, here is your food stamp starter pack since your business venture was artificially destroyed"
Re:People don't upgrade from what they're given (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But if they don't include IE... (Score:1, Insightful)
what am I going to use to download firefox? Do they really expect end users to learn to use FTP? I'm not sure the DOJ has thought this through.
I'm posting AC because I work for a company that has Microsoft to thank for a lot of the money it makes (think in the direction of repairs and anti-virus), but it would be for the best if you could UNINSTALL IE AND WMP. They don't have to remove it as default, just make them uninstallable, there is NO reason why a media player should be embedded tightly into an OS, neither a browser. From a security standpoint, having the same app for local filesystems and teh interwebs is also something that only happens in Microsoftland. Give people choice.
More EU "justice" (Score:1, Insightful)
The EU created an entire subset of the legal system which only applies to Microsoft. It's a protection racket- give the EU a few billion every year, and they allow them to operate in the EU.
Otherwise, their law would prevent Apple from "shielding" Safari from competition. And let's extend that, too- Google, the iPhone, Windows Mobile, and Blackberry all have to bundle "competing" applications on their devices, allow OS choice on the phones, etc.
But they won't do that, because that entire area of law only applies to one company.
Re:The EU is just bashing an American company (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I am skeptical (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I don't believe you can have a closed reference implementation control by one company who controls the standard. It just can't work.
Re:More EU "justice" (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is not so much bundling, as the impossibility to unbundle e.g. WMP and IE.
I do think, even as a Good European, that the EU would not be doing this if MS were French. Maybe if they were British.
Mods: Offtopic? Really?
Re:The EU is just bashing an American company (Score:3, Insightful)
. One only has to look at the relative successes of Linus Torvalds versus Richard Stallman as a prime example.
The GPL is more important than Linux. With out GPL there would be no Linux, it never would have taken off. The GPL makes open source projects sticky, making it easier to hit critical mass. It's why GNU/Linux is bigger than BSD. Sometimes pedantic is the long term pragmatic.
Having said that, I think Firefox is right to support innerHTML, and OpenOffice is right to read/write doc files.
Re:The EU is just bashing an American company (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the problems around MSIE in terms of standards compliance have been fixed in IE 8. The other half of the problem, though, is ActiveX
They sure have good CSS 2.1 compliance with IE8. The other half of the problem is not ActiveX, though, it is EcmaScript (javascript) compliance and DOM binding compliance. It is not too much of a problem if you use one of the many good JavaScript libraries, but all of those have had to build provisions specifically for IE because of the poor compliance.
... ActiveX, which other browsers cannot implement on platform other than Windows. If ActiveX where implemented aa true open standard, without moving targets, without reliance on the underlying platform, then it would be possible to produce browsers on competing platforms that supported ActiveX.
Since Microsoft has deliberately chosen to keep certain details of ActiveX a complete an utter secret and tie it into Windows, there's no way for anyone to implement on a non-Windows platform.
This deliberate tie-in is an effort by Microsoft to create vendor lock-in. Microsoft can either compete fairly or they can fight dirty. They've consistently chosen to fight dirty and until they stop, they're always going to face criticism for it.
ActiveX is really COM objects. COM is a binary Windows standard for object oriented APIs. Incidently it inspired Gnome which uses a binary standard very much like it. There is *nothing* secretive about ActiveX. There is tons of documentation. Anyone can implement ActiveX objects, anyone can implement ActiveX containers. The problem is that it is exactly a binary standard. With no virtual execution system involved objects are always tied to the platform. It is compiled code calling Windows APIs. That's why ActiveX does not exist on other platforms. It should be possible to implement through Wine, though. Wondering is somebody already did it...
Re:Oh yea, we'll test it really hard. (Score:3, Insightful)
In many areas it is much more powerful than bash - and it is certainly a better "fit" for Windows than bash would be (PS is object-oriented and object-based and practically all of Windows API is now exposed as objects either through COM, WMI or .NET). Note, that is not saying that PS would be better for *nix than bash.
Feel the power:
Get-WmiObject -Class Win32_PingStatus -Filter "Address='127.0.0.1'" -ComputerName . | Select-Object -Property Address,ResponseTime,StatusCode
PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=128 time=46 ms
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=128 time=0 ms
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=128 time=0 ms
^C
----127.0.0.1 PING Statistics----
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip (ms) min/avg/max/med = 0/15/46/0
No doubt PowerShell offers unheard of (til now) functionality, and to the degree that statement is more meaningful than saying "Best Windows version yet!", I'd say PowerShell is awkward, clumsy, and verbose and indicative of how Microsoft still doesn't "get it".
Who know? Maybe in Windows 8 they might even take the bold step of rewriting cmd.exe, the Notepad of terminals, and really impress everyone, leaving us waiting with baited breath for symlinks in Windows 9.
Re:PowerShell ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh yea, we'll test it really hard. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I am skeptical (Score:3, Insightful)
A human being is a human being. It does not matter if that human is an adult, teen, child, infant, or fetus.
Re:I am skeptical (Score:3, Insightful)
However, not encouraging people to use another's product is not anti-competitive, that's just rational practice.
Exactly. When Microsoft told OEMs that if they bundled another browser (let alone made it default) they'd lose their privileged pricing on Windows OEM, that was illegal (and wrong.) But when Microsoft put IE into Windows, they were (attempting) to improve Windows' functionality. When Microsoft made IE super non-compliant to standards and created their own new closed "standard" ActiveX to attempt to tie people to Internet Explorer, they were doing something fucked up, but not necessarily illegal - but that is at least a matter for discussion. We explicitly protect reverse-engineering for the purpose of interoperability, so it's not like it's illegal for you to figure out how IE works and institute compatibility. Difficult and annoying, yes. Illegal, no.
Re:is this a little one sided? (Score:3, Insightful)
is this a little one sided?
No.
ive never had a mac so i wouldnt know for sure, but i would assume that OSX or leopard or whatever its called bundles something
They bundle lots of things. But bundling, in general, is not what MS is being charged with. They're being charged with undermining markets, bundling just happens to be the mechanism.
Analogy. Bob fires a gun into Tom and kills him. Bob is arrested for murder. Jake fires a gun into a target and wins the olympics. Jake is not arrested for murder. Is that one-sided, or is it that firing a gun is not illegal, while murder is?
Re:Ignorance (Score:3, Insightful)
My problem with treating IE bundling as an antitrust issue is pretty simple -- I simply don't recognize browsers as being a separate market. They're more like an 'aftermarket accessory'.
Web applications are pretty pervasive these days. Social networking sites, online banking, web mail, Google docs, photo sharing sites, etc. are all examples thereof. In that context, a browser is merely another 'framework' on which applications run. An OS without this framework is an incomplete OS.
So I still contend that the EU is just trying to extract money in this case.
Re:Ignorance (Score:3, Insightful)
People did and do make money from creating and providing browsers without an OS attached. People sell browsers as payware directly. That's a separate market under the law. It's not even a question at this point.
You're misunderstanding my point. The browsers sold (for money) are aftermarket 'enhancements' to an OS. The reverse is not true -- nobody provides Desktop OSes without browsers.
You're making an arbitrary distinction, but it's a technological one. One could argue that an OS without BIOS to run on is incomplete and unusable and argue that on technological grounds. Antitrust law is about insuring the integrity of the free market and as such applies not technologies, but markets. It's not about what works with what, but about who buys what (or more specifically profits from what).
How is that arbitrary? I called out numerous, common, and specific consumer scenarios that depend on having a browser present, and concluded from them that an OS sans browser is incomplete. I can call out a specific case to invalidate your scenario as well -- if you get machines sans BIOS -- and bundle the BIOS with the OS -- how do you load the BIOS into the ROM? Technical distinctions are important when talking about technology...
You can contend that all you want, but there isn't any evidence. In terms of the law, they are clearly in violation.
Look, you can repeat that line about the law all you want -- and the EU may well agree with you, fine MS 10 billion dollars, force them to strip IE etc. -- that doesn't mean it's correct. The law might say whatever it wants about monopolies -- that doesn't mean that browsers are a separate market. The EU might rule that browsers are a separate market -- that doesn't mean they are right.
The EU commissioners don't profit from this judgement in any way.
The EU stands to gain overall by reducing dependence on MS software. The EU stands to gain financially by fining MS. The EU commissioners are actors for the EU. You know this already -- I don't have to spell it out. Everyone in this debate looks at it with colored lenses depending on where they stand. The law, and rulings based on it are also colored by these lenses. You need to stop pretending that the law (and results of court cases) are always right/just/fair. You have to accept the law -- no question about that. But in a debate you can certainly call into question it's wisdom, and rulings based on it. In this case, I am calling into question any ruling that says browsers are a separate market -- if the EU commission does rule along those lines, MS has no option but to comply. No question. But they will feel hard-done, and I will agree with them, because the commission will have ruled wrongly, and it will be their conflict of interest that leads to such a ruling.