Microsoft Ready To Address EU Antitrust Concerns 176
An anonymous reader sends this quote from a Reuters report:
"Software giant Microsoft is ready to introduce measures that would address the European Union's antitrust concerns about users' ability to chose between different browsers, European Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said on Saturday. EU antitrust regulators are investigating whether Microsoft blocks computer makers from installing rival web browsers on its upcoming Windows 8 operating system, following complaints from several companies. Almunia is in charge of antitrust enforcement at the European Commission. 'In my personal talks with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer he has given me assurances that they will comply immediately regardless of the conclusion of the anti trust probe,' Almunia said at an economic conference in northern Italy, adding that he considered the matter a 'very, very serious issue.'"
Yeah, right! (Score:4, Informative)
Isn't this the same company that somehow "accidentally" dropped the browser selection process for european installations of Windows 7 SP1?
Re:Dear EU regulator: Secure Boot (Score:5, Informative)
I wish they could add secure boot to the list that requires a mechanism to disable, such as locked bootloaders. This could be done similar to how the Nexus did the fastboot oem unlock, or similar to the mechanism of entering the IMEI, clicking yes to a series of dire warnings, and then getting a code to type in to unlock the bootloader permanently.
Maybe it is pie in the sky, but it would be nice to have the ability to truly use a device one purchased as their own.
Re:Think About This (Score:5, Informative)
I know a few ppl will try to use market share agreement
This has little to do with market share now. Microsoft consented to a legally binding agreement with the European Commission. You might not approve of that agreement, but Microsoft and their division of anti-trust lawyers did agree to it. Now it would seem that Microsoft is in violation of that legally binding agreement and the EC is rightly talking with Microsoft about that.
Should companies be able to sign legally binding deals with governments and then simply ignore them?
Re:For the record (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a huge Steve Ballmer fan. I really love the direction he's taking the company. He's taking bold risks and exploring new avenues to give stockholders the returns they deserve. His work with partners - notably HP, Dell, Sony and Nokia are laudable: he's convinced them to operate on negative margins to Microsoft's benefit, even though their stocks are plumbing decadal lows on the stock market even on the eve of a new Windows launch. The man seems to have magical powers to lure others to their doom. You gotta give him that.
He is taking bold risks because he has to. Microsoft missed the mobile boat years ago and they're now trying to catch up by cannibalizing Nokia's last hope for survival.
He has no magical powers, on the contrary. Last time I checked, he was in urgent need of a few Anger Management classes.
Re:Double standards (Score:2, Informative)
Market share.
In a perfect free market environment (a lot of almost equal choices), no seller would be able to control the market and thus could do whatever they want, the result would just be felt by them (set prices too high - everyone buys from the competitor).
However, the market for desktop OSs is not really "free". Windows dominate it with a huge market share. As such, whatever Microsoft does will affect not just them. Even if Microsoft does a lot of people do not like, Windows will still hold the dominating position - remember when people were using Vista even tough it sucked, just because there were no drivers for their PC for XP? As such, Microsoft can be considered to be having a monopoly and the ability to abuse it. For example - what if Microsoft made Windows no longer work with, say, Dell computers (not some "natural" incompatibility like 64bit vs 32bit, but "if (PC_mfg == "Dell") Crash();")? Dell would suffer a lot, it may even go out of business. What if Microsoft did that in response to Dell selling some computer with Linux installed by default and told Dell to stop selling PCs with Linux or Windows will not longer work on all Dell's PCs? This is called "abusing your position" and there are laws against it.
On the other hand, a small guy can do whatever he wants, because he does not have the power to influence the market such a degree (what if Linux stopped working on all Dell PCs? Nothing much would happen to the bottom line of Dell, and "Stop selling PCs with Windows or Linux won't work on any of your PCs" threat would not result in Dell complying with it).
Re:Government intervention goes both ways (Score:2, Informative)
As a 'Debian derivative' user:
If Debian or *any company* had 90% of the Desktop PC OS market (or even 50%), I'd consider it might be a reasonable matter for the EU competition authorities to be concerned in.
Did you get that the whole point of competition law was regulating the misuse of power by *dominant* companies, who have the power to force an entire market in a particular direction? And that Debian is not such a company, so it can do what it likes in this respect, unless and until it becomes such a company?