The Future of Innovation At Stake?

Neuropol writes "Next week, Microsoft will launch a challenge against the European Union's highest court. The European Commission will need to decide if they are to overturn the EU Court's 2004 Anti-Trust case ruling. Amid arguments over the usual suspects like Windows Media Player, one of the key points of the CNN article that caught my attention was this quote from a EU Commission lawyer stating that Microsoft aims 'to eliminate the openness of the Internet, to proprietize the Internet, the lawyer said, adding the groundwork will be laid in Microsoft's forthcoming new operating system, Vista.'"

Comments

WinFX

[Overly Critical Guy]

Microsoft aims 'to eliminate the openness of the Internet, to proprietize the Internet, the lawyer said, adding the groundwork will be laid in Microsoft's forthcoming new operating system, Vista.'"

For those who don't know, he's probably referring specifically to WinFX APIs including XAML that allow you to download and run an app through IE. So it's a clever attempt at replacing/renaming ActiveX and making the web a Windows-dependent app delivery platform. It will be sad if they succeed, since the formerly platform-independent web will become little more than a content house for IE-delivered Vista apps.

Re:WinFX

[Anonymous Coward]

You should include yourself in the list of those that "don't know." WinFX is an API replacement for Win32. It is a .NET-based API for use in writing applications on the Windows platform. Nearly every single aspect about it is designed specifically for locally installed applications.

XAML is just a markup language for declarative UI programming. While it is being designed to work with WPF, the new UI libraries, it can work with the existing libraries as well. It effectively replaces the existing resource files that have been in use by MFC for well over a decade.

The only small nugget of truth in anything you claimed is the ability to deliver Avalon applications over the Internet. While the architecture is slightly different the mechanism is no different than the current state of browser plugins, ActiveX or the ability to host .NET UI in a browser container.

The only differences are that these plugins will be able to host Avalon UI components and that these plugins, despite your rhetoric, are not limited to just the Windows platform. Microsoft has announced and demonstrated WPF/E running on Mac in Safari.

Legitimate Concerns

[Atomm]

Personally, I became concerned when I learned that Microsoft had rewritten the TCP/IP stack in Vista/Longhorn and added some of their own protocols.

For those who do not understand, the TCP/IP stack in almost all OSes is based on the original BSD stack. The protocols all have specific rules. Every part of the OSI Layers serves a specific function. It works and should not be monkeyed with.

It is scary when Microsoft decides they can do something better than the IEEE. Anyone remember WINS? How well did that work? It seems they learned their lesson. Now, instead of trying to compete with TCP/IP, they are going to rewrite their own needs into the protocols. This is very, very scary.

Here are the boring technical details.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns /cableguy/cg0905.mspx

Be afraid, be very afraid.....

Re:Legitimate Concerns

[110010001000]

Um, yeah, sorry. They aren't changing TCP/IP. They are just adding API features to the stack and better v6 support. Hate to break it to ya, but modern TCP/IP stacks are not just code copied from a BSD. They have been added to and portions have been rewritten.

Heres an example of some of the features they added:

-Reconfigure without having to restart the computer
-New support for scaling on multi-processor computers
-Easier kernel mode network programming

There is nothing in the article that suggests changes/enhancements to the protocol itself.

Of course you will be modded up to +5 and I will be modded to oblivion, but I thought I might throw the truth out there for those that are interested.

Oh and BTW: The whole EU process is one thing - getting the lawyers rich on both sides. You should not be cheering them on. They will come after anyone in IT if they think they can make a buck.

Halloweenies

[soxos]

Microsoft seeks to proprietize the Internet? I can't believe it.

Oh wait, sure I can: http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/

If you care about standards, you should take the time to read those.

someone got a little confused here

[theonlyholle]

The European Commission will need to decide if they are to overturn the EU Court's 2004 Anti-Trust case ruling

Ehm... it's the other way round - the commission is part of the executive and its decision is now undergoing judicial review by the court... it may sometimes seem like it, but the EU is not a bunch of banana republics where the executive controls the courts ;)

Re:Old argument

[Kjella]

And so it goes with Windows: use Media Player or don't -- you have a choice.

In theory you do, in practise they're using their monopoly so that it isn't rational. Imagine you're building a car from parts, and Microsoft has a monopoly on the engine block. Then they start shipping "free" carburators with each engine block. Of course, they're not actually free because you sure paid for them somehow but if you want anything else, you have to not only pay full price for new ones (which can't cross-subsidize like that) and go through the hassle of installing them. Pretty soon Microsoft has taken over the carburator market. Then they start to work on another part. Lather, rinse, repeat.

For each step is becomes more and more difficult for any independent parts maker to contribute anything at all to a car. Creating a whole non-MS car is more and more difficult because more and more parts are MS-only, which you have to replace all off (remember, they won't give you separate parts). Hell, many of the other parts makers have deals that prevent them from helping them either directly (exclusivity) or indirectly (rebates on exclusivity = penalties for helping competition).

This is not competition in any sense of the word. This is a monopoly strong-arming others out of a related market. To say that you have a choice is just silly when the whole point is that they're using the monopoly to ensure that you get the product whether you want to or not, and whether you want to pay for it or not. You almost always have choices, like doing without it at all. Or to pay a higher price to replace the "free" parts. Abuse of monopoly isn't about taking away all the choices, just about taking away all the rational choices.

Re:Old dog, old tricks.

[FyRE666]

How's the weather up there in your cloud of ignorance. I'm not sure if you're trolling, or just completely misguided. MS have (and this is documented by hard evidence that anyone with an ounce of sense can dig up on Google) put competitors out of business by using their monopoly position on many occasions.

In fact, a company I worked at saw this happen first hand where MS forced Compaq to use its product; which was riddled with bugs, and had far less features than the competition, despite requiring twice the amount of Flash memory. This was the absolute opposite of innovation, it was holding the hardware back, customers were getting a woefully bad product, and Compaq only complied due to the implied repercusions if it used a competitor.

Re:Old dog, old tricks.

[passthecrackpipe]

MS is not being fined by the EU for being a monopolist, or for being a successful company, or anything of the sort. They are being fined because the EU made some specific demand, like - produce working, legible, understandable and implementable specifications for your interoperability protocol suite - CIFS etc. - and they refuse to do so, obfuscating everything.

The EU doesn't much care if every server in the EU is a windows server, but they do want to make that others have a chance of actually interoperating with those servers. Splitting up MS isn't going to achieve that, but fines will.