So now Microsoft is “abusing their near-monopoly?” The main thing I got out of this article (and similar ones on Fox, MSNBC, etc) was that Microsoft is getting fined for bundling certain software with Windows. Am I mistaken, or is this what the fine is for?
So Real and Apple are complaining that bundling Media Player with Windows prevents this “nice and healthy competition” from prospering, and- in turn- they are being hurt by this action.
EU Regulators said:
How about this: making crummy software deters innovation and reduces consumer choice in the technology market. Having Media Player doesn’t prevent computer users from using QuickTime or RealPlayer for their media. Having to download QuickTime or RealPlayer, along with 20 different updates prevents users (or me, at least) from using the applications extensively.
So, my point is-- are a lot of software companies pointing fingers, and shoving blame onto Microsoft for problems that have more to do with the way they create software, than with Microsoft being a “big bad corporation?”
LilShieste
It is easier to compare Linux or Mac distributions. Both ship with a plethora of mini-programs, like text editors, graphics programs, media players, web browsers, and the like.
The difference is, it seems, that doing it while you hold a monopoly on an industry is what is illegal about it. It is kinda weird, because most monopoly cases I’ve looked at involve price fixing more than product tie-ins.
I do believe that Microsoft is largely demonized, though. I mean, if Microsoft released a product as buggy and generally crappy as Netscape 6/7/Mozilla 1, they would be taken to task. Frankly, AOL is a more threatening monopoly than Microsoft.
Now you’re making the EU’s case for them. That’s part of the point. WMP is already there and you have to download the other programs. This is an advantage for MS, which controls most of the desktops. MS has used this strategy before to destroy competition as with Explorer.
If you don’t like downloading updates you shouldn’t be using an OS that requires constant “security” updates to keep it from being turned into a zombie for use by spammers and hackers.
Sure, it’s all their fault that they can’t compete properly with a company that has 90+% market share in the desktop and has used techniques to exclude competition that have been found illegal and criminal in the US.
Has something changed in their marketshare since the last time they were convicted of being an abusive monopolist?
The term for what the EU is fining Microsoft for is “monopoly leveraging”: taking advantage of a monopoly in one area to create a monopoly in a second. In other words, the EU judged that MS’s operating system monopoly was being used to pursue a monopoly in media players, since their media player received, effectively, preferential treatment on the desktop by being shipped with the OS. It wouldn’t be a crime if Microsoft weren’t a monopoly, but if they are a monopoly, then there are restrictions they have to follow to avoid breaking the law that non-monopoly companies don’t.
No, not really. Real and Apple have good products that have always been good, compared to Windows Media Player; as usual, MS took a while to catch up in terms of quality. Remember, both of them beat MS to the marketplace in this product niche.
You can come up with a lot of motivations for using antitrust legislation against your competitors, playing hardball business among them. I don’t think poor development practices are among them.
Microsoft’s practice has a certain effect on prices. The prices for whatever they choose to include are forced extremely low. Would you pay for the standard version of quicktime, a wonderful piece of software? (Ok, that nobody would pay for realplayer isn’t Microsoft’s fault…) While free alternative browsers are alive and well, the market for commercial browsers is more or less dead. Their success which is largely caused by momentum enables them to crush a new market segment every now and then.
First off-- good luck finding an OS that doesn’t have bugs. I will concede that Windows is buggy, but the main reason there are so many hackers exploiting Windows is that it is so popular. If/when a version of Linux, or some other OS, starts to become as prominent in household PCs as Windows, I guarantee you can expect to download just as many “update patches” for them. In other words-- I don’t fault Microsoft for these updates.
In fact, I don’t fault any software developer for patching their software. I do have a problem with the way some of them accomplish this, though.
As an example: to watch this one clip of The Daily Show on ComedyCentral.com, I had to download RealPlayer. No problem, it’s not a big deal. So I download the player, and open it up. Oh… now it needs to download some updates. Oh… now my computer needs to restart. <after rebooting> Oh… now it is downloading even more updates.
At least Microsoft makes their patches somewhat straight-forward, and time-efficient.
Maybe they should just try harder (or maybe even try something different. iTunes was a step in the right direction). Microsoft had to work to get to where it is today, and I don’t see why its competitors should get some kind of break so they can “catch up.”
I certainly won’t deny that Microsoft has conducted some pretty shady practices in the past, but wasn’t that trial already settled?
The ruling is to try to ensure fair competition in the pc media player market - ie provide a level playing field for all companies to compete. How good the alternatives are is irrelevant. Basically Microsoft should not be allowed to use its dominance in operating systems to give itself an unfair advantage in other fields. It has been found guilty of doing that, and thus breaking competition law. Seems pretty clear to me…
It has to do with access given to the computer’s resources through the OS.
Microsoft the OS(Windows) developer provides a set of software-based interfaces that translate program commands into computer activity, so that a different version of sofware does not have to be created for every conceivable hardware configuration. When your program tells the computer to print a document, for instance, it sends the command to the OS, which works with the driver for whatever printer is attached to get the document printed.
Providing access to OS interfaces is mainly a matter of professional courtesy, until you get into a monopoly situation. Microsoft the Internet Explorer developer is in direct competition with other developers such as Netscape. Good old fashion market forces may lead Microsoft to allow interoperability to Netscape browsers. But what if Microsoft the IE developer is given access (by Microsoft the Windows developer) to resources that boost IE’s performance, but doesn’t offer this enhanced interoperability to Netscape? Is Netscape a lesser application or have they been unfairly hampered by the non-competitive practices of Microsoft the Windows developer? In recent versions of Windows, IE was so tightly bound to the operating system that it was really difficult to even run competitors browsers on Windows.
The same situation has just been decided in Europe with regard to media players. Microsoft the Windows Media Player developer has been granted (again, by Microsoft the Windows developer) better functionality with Windows than has been made available to other developers, requiring them to patch their programs with various workarounds every time Windows downloads another “essential security patch”, which can tend to make their programs run clunkier than Media Player. Are the other programs of lower quality, or have they been hamstrung by Windows?
Documented incidences like this abound worldwide, but the details are not easy to explain to political and judicial types, especially given the fact that computer people (as evidenced by your typical software manual) have difficulty communicating anything to anybody.
The more you know about computers, the less explicable some of Microsoft’s programming decisions are. Some of their software is just fine, but a lot of it makes no sense in terms of its design, especially Windows.
Have you noticed that more recent versions of XP tend to freeze and crash much less often than older Windows OS’s? That’s because Microsoft incorporated deadlock avoidance routines in its process handling. How clever of them! Until you find out that these routines were developed decades ago and have been standard practice in OS design since the 1970s. What the hell has MS been doing all that time? Rumors also abound that the source code for Microsoft Word contains several hundred thousand lines of code that don’t seem to have any function at all, but can’t be removed because removal causes the program to crash.
One must wonder if Microsoft products would maintain their dominance if subjected to a fair playing field.
Some personal anecdotes:
When I used to own a Mac, I began surfing the internet with Netscape Navigator. Soon, Microsoft came out with Internet Explorer. When I installed it, suddenly Netscape didn’t function properly. IE ran great, but Netscape was buggy until I uninstalled some of the system files IE had put on my hard drive. Netscape then worked, and so did IE, the missing files apparantly having nothing to do with its proper operation.
Eight years ago I was talking with a programmer who was creating a small cross-platform database system with FileMaker Pro, which is in direct competition with Microsoft Access. When run on a Mac, the print commands used in some of the scripts would work just fine, but on Windows, they didn’t. It took him two years to find out that Windows was flat-out IGNORING the print commands issued by the programs of Microsoft’s competitor. He had to re-write all the scripts in the Windows version so that printing was handed over to Windows. I have since seen professional solutions that have not solved the same problem.
About 6 years ago, I met a programmer who used to work for a company that created PC software. After several problems occurred, they paid Microsoft a hefty fee to improve their interoperability. It turned out that their code lacked a command called “stacks”. "Stacks didn’t actually do anything, but that version of DOS was built in such a way that if “stacks” wasn’t there, the program would not function correctly, and might not even start at all. It was Microsoft’s way of ensuring that anyone who wanted to put quality software in their OS was in their pocket.
Bill Gates is a genius, but his skill is not, and has never been, the creation of quality software.
But, to me, this gets into some very gray areas, in which I feel I should side with Microsoft. An operating system can be considered a “killer app” (that is, an application that makes buyers want to go buy a computer so they can use it) just as much as a regular application. One of the ways of designing a “killer app” is by having the idea “make things easier for the user” in mind. How would an OS accomplish this? One way is to bundle certain software with the OS. Does this give Microsoft an advantage over companies like Real? Yes. My suggestion-- build an OS.
Mario Monti said:
It sounds like they are more concerned with “preventing competition” than harming consumers, since bundling something like Media Player makes a lot of our lives easier.
I take the same type of stance on the Wal-Mart issue as well. Some people have a problem with Wal-Marts coming to their towns/cities because it will drive away other grocery/department/etc stores (i.e. Wal-Mart’s competitors) because of the low prices. Personally, if I can buy something at Wal-Mart for 60% of the price I see for the same thing at a “Mom n Pop” store… I’m sorry, but “Mom n Pop” need to do something, or look into a different business scope.
scotandrsn: Thanks for your thorough explanation on the Monopoly matter. It does clarify a few things for me… but why should this huge mess stop with operating systems? What if I am trying to write an application that interfaces with Adobe Photoshop… should I be able to force Adobe to hand over some of their proprietary source code, so I can be sure that I’m not being prevented from performing some task more efficiently than Photoshop?
Umm, no. The security model used in Windows (basically allowing full access to all files/resources to the GUI user) along with the fact that a lot of dangerous options are turned on by default in things like Outlook is the reason Windows is a hacker’s paradise. Linux uses a security model where the GUI is generally run as a normal user with much lower permission levels. Common Linux mail programs also do not have scripts turned on by default. The fault for the above security problems lies with MS.
You had to reboot, huh? Again, you’re making my arguments for me. Windows is the only widely used OS that requires all that stupid rebooting. I update software on my Linux machines all the time. A reboot is never necessary.
Per the above, I do not consider waiting around for the OS to reboot because I updated some trivial program to be time-efficient. How many dollars spiral down the toilet every year thanks to this?
Translation: The only remedy you should have when a monopoly destroys your company and your livelihood is to “try something different” - like maybe panhandling? Thankfully, the courts in the EU and even the US do not agree with you.
Settled by a ridiculous slap on the wrist with MS still playing the same dirty tricks today.
I agree with you 100% that the above security problems are the fault of MS. But I still think you are deluding yourself, if you think that Linux’s security model is completely fool-proof. No system is perfect. But yes, some are buggier than others.
Hmm… how odd. I kinda thought that this was because of the way Real developed their software. Most of the applications I install do not require a reboot. What makes Real so special? The fact that it is trying to set itself up as the default player for all these different types of files (and thus has to make modifications to the trash can known as “The Registry”)? Because it wants to have a process in my systray whenever I start my machine? Thanks, but maybe I’ll stick to software that’s more WYSIWYM. Personally, I’ve never hads to reboot after installing software that I developed.
Ok, I agree with you here, and concede any arguments I had about “time efficient” updates from MS.
[tangent]
Speaking of throwing money down the drain, though… why is MS the only company to really get slapped around for some of their practices? Personally, I thought the whole ordeal concerning Apple and their iPod devices- and batteries with a lifetime of 18 months, that cannot be replaced- was pretty shady. I barely saw anything regarding that, though. People just continue to worship Apple for being so upfront about everything, unlike shady MS.
[/tangent]
Anyway, I am just trying to look at this situation from a consumer standpoint, and I fail to see how this “competitive” market would do me (and other consumers) any good. It more seems like a way for companies to complain about not making as much money as they think they should be making.
I never implied that Linux was fool-proof, only better than Windows. Furthermore, Windows stands out amongst OSes for security problems. Most every other common OS has had vastly better security, sometimes for decades as in the case of the old Unixes. To quote scotandrsn “What the hell has Microsoft been doing all that time?”.
So you don’t reboot for every install/upgrade. My point was that rebooting at all to install software other than the kernel is pretty ridiculous for a modern OS, and once again MS stands out as a “market leader” in this dubious category.
There is going to be less concern over someone trying to gain a monopoly over portable music players than over someone trying to take over essentially the entire IT industry and get his fingers into every digital pie on the planet. It’s the different between cornering the oil market and cornering the market for teapots. Apple gets an easier ride than it deserves partly because many people see it as the only thing holding back total MS control of everything. Linux is changing that and Apple will see more scrutiny in future. This is a red herring anyway, the topic is not Apple’s iPod or the supposed bias of the IT press.
If you can’t see the point in competition unhindered by monopolies, there’s really nothing to talk about.
If your point was only showing that Unix is a more secure OS than Windows, then there’s no argument here.
Firstly-- way to fight ignorance, there, Inoshiro. If my views are jaded such that I don’t understand the purpose of something, I would hope that people point it out to me (or point me in a direction where I can find more information), rather than blow me off as a lost cause.
Secondly (and I admit, probably related to the previous paragraph), I don’t see why Apple should get an “easier ride” than Microsoft. It just seems wrong (and shady in-and-of-itself) to “play favorites”, so to speak.
In all seriousness, I think I am pretty good about “admitting defeat” in a debate, when I begin to see the other side’s point. So, if I am coming across as a bull with blinders on, my apologies. I am just trying to figure out why it seems like MS is getting dumped on so much.
I don’t know what to say. I assumed that you knew most of the “consumer-centric” arguments against monopoly. Higher prices, lack of choice, shoddy products, etc… and the corresponding benefits of competition - price competitiveness, many choices, good quality. If you don’t accept these premises then we have more fundamental disagreements than this thread’s topic will cover. If you simply think that certain particular alternatives to MS software are crappy then you have a point but not a point that can be used to justify monopolistic practices. It isn’t that RealPlayer is better or worse than WMP but that the two are not on equal footing.
They won’t get an easy ride from me at least.
Well, I think I’ve made clear that I think they get dumped on because they mostly deserve it.
Thanks for your patience, Inoshiro, I appreciate it.
I see what you mean by this, and see how a monopoly would affect all of these factors. In fact, I would like to see more competition (in some fields), so some of those benefits may be reaped. For example, my parents live in an area of St. Louis where only 1 cable company provides service. That company charges a lot, and provides service that is sub-par, compared to other cable companies in the surrounding area(s). I am sure that this would change, if competition came into the area.
I think I understand what you are meaning here. Do you think it would make a difference (to the EU et. al) if MS didn’t bundle things like Media Player with the OS, and just had people download the app(s) like the competition? I agree that that seems a little more “fair” on one level, but it also seems really “unfair” on another. First, it seems ridiculous to me that I would have to take the time/bandwidth/etc to download an application that was developed by the same company that developed my OS. It just seems counter-productive, and wasteful of consumers’ time. It also sounds to me like MS is getting the raw end of the deal, only because they have developed an OS.
Ok then… that makes a bit more sense. I completely understand if Karma is just coming around to give MS a little nip in the bum.
You can argue the logic of bundling all you want, but you’re missing the point. There’s nothing wrong with bundling in and of itself; it’s a benefit. It’s when a monopolist bundles that there’s a problem, namely the anti-competitive effect of pre-empting the market that leads to a secondary monopoly.
Get it? It’s not the bundling, it’s the leveraging that’s a problem to the EU (and to American) anti-trust officials.
Have you read the EU decision? They require MS to offer a version of Windows without WMP bundled, and forbid them to force computer suppliers to take the version with WMP by direct or indirect incentives. This way the computer manufacturer, not Microsoft, gets to decide which media player gets bundled. MS’s argument was that Windows wouldn’t work without WMP, which, if you know anything at all about OS’s, is total crap.
As for consumer value, ever wonder why IE is the only browser without built-in pop-up blocking? Maybe because after they wiped out Netscape they don’t give a crap? I won’t touch IE (not the least from the many security holes) but I understand it is slow and feature-free. You and I might be comfortable downloading good browsers, but Joe or Jane computer user, who are scared of doing anything except sticking a CD in, won’t.
By the way, do you know how much viruses cost businesses? Give a guess.
