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.'"
Chrome on Windows 8 (Score:2, Interesting)
This dull reply written in Chrome on activated Windows 8 Enterprise. Chrome metro is full featured and superior in functionality to IE10 metro.
Re:Chrome on Windows 8 (Score:4, Interesting)
Now try doing that on Windows RT (the ARM version).
Re: (Score:2)
Now try doing that on Windows RT (the ARM version).
That's like Firefox on iOS, but it's ok because it - like WindowsRT - doesn't have a monopolistic position.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares about WinRT. Let Apple and google fight for domination of ARM space. I'll still take my 1000x more powerful (according to linpack) x86 processors in laptops.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, there is a difference between iOS and WinRT in that regard. And neither have blanket bans on third-party browsers, it's more subtle than that.
On iOS, the restriction is that your app cannot have an interpreter that is used to run code that is not included with the app or explicitly input by the user. Needless to say, any conventional full-featured browser much be able to download and run JS, so that shoots them down right there and then. Opera Mini gets around it by running JS on the server, hence
Re: (Score:2)
The other problem is that Windows RT does not allow the installation of third-party desktop apps; Metro only. So you can't write a third-party desktop browser for it - but it does have desktop IE...
These two things are what Mozilla and Google were complaining about. That they basically cannot fully compete with IE on Windows RT due to sandboxing that applies to them but not to IE.
WindowsRT is basically Windows Phone for tablets, it may not be bad (I personally had a WP7 device for a while and IMO it was quite good) but there is no real compelling reason to use it over iOS or Android so I doubt it will be overly successful and I certainly don't think it will hit a position in which it has monopoly share of any market so there is unlikely to be any anti-trust ruling regarding it.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically speaking, Windows RT is Windows 8 for ARM, nothing more, nothing less.
In terms of technical restrictions on third-party apps (sandboxing apps etc), yes, it's closer to Windows Phone. But remember that it still has a classic desktop, it's just that it will only run Microsoft-signed desktop apps. Even so this means that you get command prompt, PowerShell and Office. The latter in particular may prove to be a compelling reason to use it over iOS or Android, especially if you have one of those conve
Re: (Score:2)
Technically speaking, Windows RT is Windows 8 for ARM, nothing more, nothing less.
Actually technically speaking it's a lot less, the very reason most people use Windows is for existing x86 software, none of which runs on WindowsRT and that's not just processor architecture differences that could be overcome (mostly by a recompile it's that the APIs simply don't exist on WindowsRT.
In terms of technical restrictions on third-party apps (sandboxing apps etc), yes, it's closer to Windows Phone. But remember that it still has a classic desktop, it's just that it will only run Microsoft-signed desktop apps.
Is there a problem with that? Yes it's anti-competitive but so are restrictions on iOS, unless it comes to dominate the market such that it becomes really the only choice that's fine, that's how anti-trust and a
Re: (Score:2)
Actually technically speaking it's a lot less, the very reason most people use Windows is for existing x86 software, none of which runs on WindowsRT and that's not just processor architecture differences that could be overcome (mostly by a recompile it's that the APIs simply don't exist on WindowsRT.
Those APIs do exist on Windows RT, that's how its classic desktop, Office etc works. You just don't get access to them in your own apps, unless you find some way to jailbreak it, or somehow procure a Microsoft signing key for your binaries.
Is there a problem with that? Yes it's anti-competitive but so are restrictions on iOS, unless it comes to dominate the market such that it becomes really the only choice that's fine, that's how anti-trust and anti-competition law work.
Not saying it is or isn't, just what's there. If push comes to shove, the courts will be the ones figuring it out.
Re: (Score:2)
Those APIs do exist on Windows RT, that's how its classic desktop, Office etc works. You just don't get access to them in your own apps, unless you find some way to jailbreak it, or somehow procure a Microsoft signing key for your binaries.
I doubt it but do you have a link? There's no reason they would need to port MFC and ATL for desktop, Office or IE and I doubt they'd bother to port any more of the win32 libraries than what they absolutely need.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it but do you have a link? There's no reason they would need to port MFC and ATL for desktop, Office or IE
MFC or ATL are just wrappers over the vanilla Win32 APIs. The latter is what I'm talking about.
I'm not sure what you need a reference for. That Windows RT comes with Office? If so, then the spec sheet for Surface [microsoft.com] lists it, and it's been widely discussed elsewhere, just Google for it.
It doesn't actually take all that much effort to port the libraries. It's mostly C and C++, remember, and ARM is a 32-bit architecture, same as x86, so you can get pretty far with just a recompile. Not to mention that those libr
Re: (Score:2)
MFC or ATL are just wrappers over the vanilla Win32 APIs. The latter is what I'm talking about.
And the latter is what i'm asking about. MFC/ATL (among others like VfW, DS, etc...) aren't available on Windows RT/Phone8 which means a huge segment of applications (in fact most of the popular Windows applications) will not be able to be compiled because those APIs simply do not exist, even if all the win32 APIs exist. That's the difference between Windows 8 and RT/Phone8. RT/Phone8 are far more technically similar than either are to Windows 8.
I'm not sure what you need a reference for.
The win32 APIs that are on WindowsRT, just because they have .
Re: (Score:2)
And the latter is what i'm asking about. MFC/ATL (among others like VfW, DS, etc...) aren't available on Windows RT/Phone8 which means a huge segment of applications (in fact most of the popular Windows applications) will not be able to be compiled because those APIs simply do not exist, even if all the win32 APIs exist.
That doesn't make sense. You simply cannot compile MFC/ATL on a platform without Win32 APIs, which is why it isn't there on Windows Phone. You could certainly compile it on ARM. It's just not available to developers outside of MS.
Again, I can't give you definite links one way or another - I don't know any single article that would cover this topic. It's just not something that would have a lot of public docs, since the official dev story is "Metro only on ARM", and that's that. Since the desktop ARM SDK is
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make sense. You simply cannot compile MFC/ATL on a platform without Win32 APIs, which is why it isn't there on Windows Phone.
Not on WP7 but on WP8 since it uses WinRT and the NT kernel.
You could certainly compile it on ARM. It's just not available to developers outside of MS.
So, no, internally WinRT and WP8 are much further away than WinRT and Win8. The latter two have the same kernel and largely the same userspace, unlike the former which mostly shares the kernel.
Explain? WinRT and WP8 share a lot more than the kernel, so if that's all you're basing it on then you're way off (filesystem, Bitlocker, SecureBoot, WinRT, SQLite, DirectX, 32-bit only). WindowsRT and WP8 also both lack all the legacy libraries (and even many non-legacy libraries) and all 64bit support that Windows 8 has which is the reason neither supports much existing Windows software at all. WP8 and WindowsRT certainly appear a hell of a lot m
Re: (Score:2)
Explain? WinRT and WP8 share a lot more than the kernel, so if that's all you're basing it on then you're way off (filesystem, Bitlocker, SecureBoot, WinRT, SQLite, DirectX, 32-bit only)
I don't know where you've got that list from, but it's also wrong. For example, Win8 does not ship with SQLite on any architecture (I don't know about WP8). Secure Boot is not really an OS-level thing, it's just signed bootloader verification on hardware level, Linux can use it just the same. BitLocker is a technology trademark, so when WP8 feature list says that it supports BitLocker, all that means is that it supports encrypted data storage; doesn't mean that it's the same exact product (though some code
Re: (Score:2)
It's a trap (Score:4, Interesting)
He ALWAYS says that, during the last anti-trust case, they lost, they where required to offer a choice. Microsoft would endlessly make some token change, then do a press release saying basically "EU has defeated us totally, we've capitulated, oh how unfair it all is", then a week later they'd quietly release details of the change they'd made and it was nothing, and didn't address the core point.
They did this 4 or 5 times, each time doing a press release saying they'd totally capitulated, then release the change later only to find they hadn't done anything, then lobby US Senators and Congressmen to twist the law in their favor against with jingoism.
It's a game he plays.
ballot DVD (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree with you, MS have always played the same game, they get a slap on the hand, they promise, then they do nothing.
Result today : we can't uninstall IE, selecting another search engine is painful, and we are obliged to buy Windows with every new machine.
As long as MS have their deal with manufacturers to enforce a pre-installed windows nothing will change : Tied sale and MS tax. Which should be punished because MS are not a HW manufacturer.
Either they do their HW and offer a pre-installed windows, eithe
The 'remedy' does nothing (Score:1, Insightful)
before we discuss chickens and eggs in this (Score:2)
what could work is
1 the ballot program should have a picklist of different browsers and then in similar fashion to Ninite grab the current version(s) and install them
http://ninite.com/.net-7zip-air-chrome-firefox-flash-flashie-foxit-java-opera-pdfcreator-reader-safari-shockwave-silverlight/ [ninite.com]
will install all of the "Top 4" other browsers and a few other things.
2 just go ahead and install all five of the top browsers and be done with it
Think About This (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
No, but maybe governments should be able to react to changes in the market more quickly or stop the meddling.
The EU agreement came way too late to make any difference in the browser market, but it is now in effect aiding an even worse monopolist than Microsoft, namely Apple.
Re:Think About This (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I always had to laugh at their argument that IE was so deeply embedded they cannot remove it.
They built this whole plug-and-play architecture with COM and it's descendants, and made the browser a flagship example of using it, then reversed course and started deliberately burying it deeply in Windows precisely to avoid anti-trust issues.
Fair enough, to possibly get around a regulation that should not be there (nobody's exactly paying for Chrome or most other browsers; these companies supply them for the exac
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know you can uninstall Safari though some of the libraries Safari uses are core OS X libraries and should not be removed.
Nah you can't, it won't let you remove it. Naturally you can force-delete it and all its associated libraries just like you can with IE, but it will break things as those libraries are required by certain OS functionality.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean "force-delete"?
Re: (Score:2)
Right-click --> Move to trash.
At which point you get a message box (in Lion and Mountain Lion, didn't try it in anything earlier) telling you it's components are required by the operating system.
What do you mean "force-delete"?
rm -f the files.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what settings you have but I don't get any warnings at all.
It's a standard install and OSX will give you this message [osxdaily.com] if you try to remove safari (or some other default install apps). It's default behavior in OSX.
Re: (Score:3)
It's really quite simple, actually.
You may not agree with the deal that Microsoft made with the EU, but Microsoft and their anti-trust lawyers did agree to it and it is legally binding.
Any questions?
Re:Think About This (Score:5, Funny)
Just one. Is a deal made with a gun to your head still legally binding?
If the one holding the gun is the government, then yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple *makes* their stuff.
Microsoft is telling a third party what the third party can put on the machines they sell running windows.
Think about the subtle difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple *makes* their stuff.
Foxconn makes most of their stuff which Apple charges a huge markup on. Microsoft makes lots of stuff too, they're a software company after all, perhaps you've heard of Windows, Office, Visual Studio, and more [wikipedia.org].
Microsoft is telling a third party what the third party can put on the machines they sell running windows.
Remind us how that works with iOS again? You want to run software, you download it through the App Store. Who gets to decide what goes onto the App Store? Apple and $100 developers license. Its not
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft market share is about 90% on the desktop, Apple's market share is no way near those percentages. When you speak a
Re: (Score:2)
It is kinda funny that some preemptive tries to block the "market share" argument while that is THE point and they do know it.
So if market share is the point then what's the specific amount of market share required?
Re: (Score:3)
Apple's iOS blocks people from changing default browser off Safari, But MS gets sued and Fined for Even Including IE? How da hell does that work?
When Apple is a monopoly, they may have to be more careful. It may seem like they are everywhere, but they do not control more than 1/2 of any market (about 33% on smartphones, around 8% on desktops)
Plus they don't block anyone from installing another competing browser, which I thought this complaint is about.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple does have a majority marketshare in tablets. And ipod-like devices. And if you lump ipod touches and iphones together as "mobiles", they did have over a 50% marketshare for a few years.
And they sure do block everyone from installing another competing browser. You can not install firefox on a iPhone/iPad/iPod touch, or any other browser that actually does useful stuff like run javascript.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's iOS blocks people from changing default browser off Safari, But MS gets sued
Every fucking time this issue is mentioned someone says this. And every fucking time the answer is still "By the legal definition, Microsoft is a monopoly; Apple isn't".
Apple has a few percent of the PC market. And virtually everyone else who sells PCs bundles Microsoft Windows. MS prevents other software makers from getting a foothold into selling to OEMs by anti-competitive actions like this.
Re: (Score:2)
But Microsoft only has a monopoly on desktops. They hold less than 1% marketshare of mobiles. On the other hand, Apple does have a majority marketshare of mobiles (when counting ipod touches, iphones, and ipads -- as they are mobile, run apps, and browse the web)
Re: (Score:2)
But Microsoft only has a monopoly on desktops. They hold less than 1% marketshare of mobiles. On the other hand, Apple does have a majority marketshare of mobiles (when counting ipod touches, iphones, and ipads -- as they are mobile, run apps, and browse the web)
MS Windows doesn't run on mobiles (a different OS with a similar name might.)
Apple sells hardware, including the OS.
They're not selling the OS to OEMs and (effectively) preventing other software vendors from entering the market, as Microsoft has been doing for the last 30 years.
If Apple prevented retailers or phone companies from selling other mobile devices, they could be prosecuted for abuse of their monopoly position in that market.
Re: (Score:2)
The law contains a threshold, you just haven't bothered to look it up.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because you're too stupid to use Google.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and it's also the one that is still bundling MSIE with each copy of Windows, despite the original complaint about bundling [opera.com]. The so-called remedy, the 'Browser Ballot' does nothing about the actual bundling and gives only the choice of MSIE+another browser. And because an increasing amount of the tech media is beholden to M$, the subject is not given the attentio
Dear EU regulator: Secure Boot (Score:5, Interesting)
Hopefully the EU addresses secure boot on ARM. Locking out all other OSs besides windows on ARM devices is abusing Microsoft's x86 monopoly to attempt to create an ARM monopoly.
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:Dear EU regulator: Secure Boot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So wouldn't the ipad be effected
No, because Apple doesn't have an effective monopoly of tablet PCs.
the time to intervene is now (Score:2)
Apple clearly engages in anti-competitive and monopolistic practices at least as bad as anything Microsoft has ever done. If we only intervene once a company has succeeded in offing its competition, we are just going to wander from one monopoly to the next. Interventions like the consent decrees are far too slow to remedy the situation.
The real solution is to set some basic standards for openness and interoperability: devices should be required to allow installation of different operating systems, devices
Re: (Score:2)
Apple clearly engages in anti-competitive and monopolistic practices at least as bad as anything Microsoft has ever done.
"Clearly?
Funny how none of the government regulators can see this then.
Yeah, they do a lot of not nice stuff, but they're not a monopoly, so different rules apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you daft or something? My whole point was that government regulators are not intervening because Apple, despite massively misbehaving, hasn't succeeded yet in killing off its competition. That's why I was saying that the time to intervene is now, as opposed to later, as we did in the Microsoft case. Get it?
Re: (Score:2)
because Apple, despite massively misbehaving, hasn't succeeded yet in killing off its competition.
A company can dominate an industry and "kill off" competition quite legally. It's only when they cross the line and abuse their position that "intervention" is warranted.
Re: (Score:2)
Have I said anything to contradict that?
No, intervention is "warranted" much earlier, if the goal is to preserve a free market, competitiveness, and innovation. That was my point: the Microsoft example in the EU shows that legal interventions currently come too late, and hence we should change the laws to allow interventions earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
hence we should change the laws to allow interventions earlier.
So, you're talking about changing the law. I was talking about what the law actually is now.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, as you would realize if you actually read my original posting.
Re: (Score:2)
How is criticizing Apple an "adherence to the fruit cult"? Are you on drugs or something?
Re: (Score:2)
So wouldn't the ipad be effected
No, because Apple doesn't have an effective monopoly of tablet PCs.
Well in that case Microsoft won't be affected either.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because Apple doesn't have an effective monopoly of tablet PCs.
Really? 64% marketshare isn't an effective monopoly?
Re: (Score:2)
--30--
No, they really shouldn't (Score:2)
Apple are not made to allow Android, neither are Nintendo with their consoles. Sony will probably never include other operating systems on their games consoles again (and they will be used as a prime example for generations to come about the minimal benefits and massive risks of opening up a closed platform).
Re: (Score:2)
they claimed that the browser was an integral part of the operating system...
You haven't tried removing Safari on OSX have you, it claims the same thing :P
Double standards (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (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 domin
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Given that browser restrictions only apply to Win8 running on ARM, we're not talking about desktop OSes here, but rather tablets and such. Where there's no established monopoly as yet (but of all companies, Apple would be closest to having it, rather than MS).
Re: (Score:2)
I was not talking about this particular agreement, but rather the general sentiment expressed in the post to which I replied. That post was also the one to invoke claims of monopoly as a rationale.
Re: (Score:2)
In MS's defense, they removed almost all of what made people dislike Vista. Vista was an improvement in terms of end user security. I ended up using vista for a short time and it wasn't bad. They did, however, make an OS that a huge number of people like in 7 by listening to their customers.
put them in the app store (with no fees and no met (Score:2)
put them in the app store (with no fees aka 100% free to be in there and no forced metro)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make much sense. Are you saying MS is denying the JIT compilation of CLR code to native code? That wouldn't be needed for security reasons. Or are you saying the MS is denying people the ability to write their own JavaScript JIT compiler? That wouldn't be much of a restriction, since you can compile JS to CLR/DLR and then let the system JIT compiler compile that to native code.
So, can you elaborate what it is you think you can't do?
Re: (Score:2)
Ballot Screens. (Score:3)
Hey! Linux and BSD are Free Operating Systems. If MS is using their dominant OEM installations to leverage IE, then they're doing the same for their OS... So, why not have a ballot when you turn an the PC for the first time that allows you to install a different OS?
I'll even go one further, why not have MS show a ballot screen that allows you to choose MS Office (trial) or the full versions of Open Office or Libre Office. Instead of PBRUSH.EXE Microsoft should be giving us a ballot box for Gimp, Inkscape, and Photoshop (w/ payment, of course).
Hey, I know, maybe we can create a repository for all the different software there is and LET THE FUCKING CUSTOMER CHOOSE? Ah, that would be insane! Why, customers couldn't possibly choose what OS they want installed on their systems -- They barely know how to use the damn devices in the first place. I know! Why doesn't someone just take advantage of this fact and leverage it to limit the available software and take a cut of all proceeds via pre-insatalled OS and "App Store" -- OOH! We could even prevent the user booting other OSs in the name of security! You know! Because if something can write to the boot sector, they'd never think of writing to ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING ELSE to infect the system. Why, it'll be the MOST SECURE VERSION of Windows ever released!
Will Microsoft actually solve the problem? (Score:2)
From what I can tell (based on what Mozilla and others have said), the root issue is basically that apps written for Metro dont get access to the Windows APIs they need and that developers on ARM get access to even less.
Will Microsoft actually FIX the problem and allow Metro (and ARM) apps to access the APIs necessary to do JIT compilation of Javascript, spawn plugins in separate processes and the other things a modern web browser (like Firefox, Chrome or Internet Explorer) needs to do?
Or will they claim th
Too little too late. Govt = Bollywood cops. (Score:3)
The PC makers are paying for their sins now. In fact paying for it for some time now. Dozens of them have gone under. The few who are left, Dell, HP+compaq, toshiba, are struggling. They all agreed to have identical offerings and chose to compete on price. Not a single one of them thought, "OK I will bite the extra cost of individual licensing, but install FiredFox+Noscript and pitch it as more secure PC and go for higher margins. In fact I will throw in OpenOffice and GIMP and virtualDub and Handbrake and pitch it as a fully functional PC". No, they did not. They all fell in line with Microsoft. Reduced to competing purely on price, with their margins cut severely, without any brand differentiation or brand identity the PC makers became as indistinguishable as costermongers, blood orange purveyors and the fish and chips vendors on the Piccadilly circus. Serves them right. Now Microsoft wants to get into hardware business and finish them all off.
But it does not matter any more. PCs are not the most common devices that use the internet. With smartphones, tablets and e-books all having internet capabilities, even if IE regains the monopoly marketshare in PCs it would not matter anymore. With google docs and other on line free tools for document creation available, most households will never ever buy MsOffice suites. Many small companies and some medium companies are switching to alternatives to Microsoft Office. So, make no mistake, Microsoft will continue to make lots of money for a long time to come. But they do not have the power to stifle the whole industry for their personal gain. Idiotic product managers in Microsoft wont be able to make venture capital funding disappear for promising new technologies by press release and vaporware any more.
And as usual the wheels of government have turned slowly and coming in to rescue us after we have fought back the menace all on our own. Where were they when Microsoft subverted document standards? Where were they when Microsoft deceptively named its shit OOXML? Where were they when we were down and the outlook looked gloomy? These are not the U S Cavalry riding into rescue at the crucial moment. They are the Bollywood cops who come into arrest the villain after the hero has single handedly defeated the villain and his thousand thugs with machine guns with bare hands, just as the credits start rolling.
Re: (Score:2)
> PCs are not the most common devices that use the internet.
So far, they certainly are, by a big margin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The article you linked is the number for all cellphone plans in the US. This include older, more basic cellphones as well. It make sense, because I have a cellphone. I also have a desktop. Everyone I know has both a cellphone and a desktop. None of replaced one with the other, and certainly those who use their desktops to do anything more than check email certainly appreciate a large screen and the 1000x more processing power.
You're also incorrect about the number of PCs out there. It's actually over a
How stupid is the EU? (Score:2)
This has been a multi-decade bullshit legal battle between the EU and Microsoft at a time when PC's are becoming irrelevant and Apple is emerging as something worse the Microsoft ever was.
At a time when the EU is still up in arms about Microsoft embedding a stupid browser and media player into Windows (because the EU assumes all Europeans a retarded and cant figure out how to use a computer properly), meanwhile Apple is securing a market of walled gardens where you can only buy and use content on some Apple
Re: (Score:1)
EU is broke.
Apparently not:
"Almunia said he was in favor of extending a temporary authorization for state aid for stricken Franco-Berlgian bank Dexia beyond a September30. deadline."
Seems to be enough to keep stuffing their banks full of money...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, when the countries had their own currencies, they could devalue accordingly and their economies could normalize in a meaningful way. With everyone using the same currency managing debt between sovereign nations becomes extremely complicated and leads to unfortunately draconian economic measures in the debtor nations.
For the record (Score:5, Funny)
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.
I hear he's now heard about this whole "mobile" thing, and is working his legendary genius to start to study whether or not it's important. Once he figures this out we might have some innovation in mobile from Microsoft. In the meantime we'll just have to muddle along with what we can get from second tier innovators like Apple and Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Impressive. Sad that you have to show the people actually getting paid for this how it's done.
Re: (Score:2)
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:For the record (Score:5, Insightful)
And the sign on the door... (Score:3)
Nokia's destiny is to be a filing cabinet full of patent licenses in Bellevue, Wa managed by 6 paralegals and one part-time lawyer. This fate is sealed. The full cabinet to the left is marked "Sendo" and the empty cabinet to the right is marked "Adobe".
And the sign on the door says, "Beware of Leopard".
:-P
Ballmer, Vogon High Commander in exile? Quick, someone get him to recite poetry!
Re: (Score:2)
That made my day really. Maybe he needs to throw some more chairs.
Developers! developers! developers!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Does the EU do anything else than US bashing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the EU have any other purpose than harassing US companies? This is 10+ year old news.
Microsoft has a legally binding contract with the EU.
It seems like Microsoft broke that contract.
The EU investigates.
Where exactly is the harassment?
On a side note: The EU also investigates European companies in the same way if they break anti-trust laws. One example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8140024.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Does the EU have any other purpose than harassing US companies?
Microsoft failed to do what they agreed to do to resolve the last case. I suppose in your world if someone is convicted of a crime, and they escape from prison, they should be let go because they've already been through a court once?
Also, just because *you* are ignorant as to what else the EU does, doesn't mean they don't also pursue other companies.
Re: (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 com