Microsoft to Allow Competitive Search

Aviran Mordo writes to tell us Reuters is reporting that Microsoft is announcing a voluntary policy to help guide the development of Windows in the future. The policy, which Microsoft senior vice president Brad Smith said was 'committed to creating a transparent system that allows open competition,' will start by allowing other search engines like Google to be set by default.

Comments

Let the bidding begin!

[I'm Don Giovanni]

That's all well and good, and I imagine that OEMs will offer the default media player, search engine, browser, etc to the highest bidder.

However, to be fair, Microsoft should not be prohibited from being one of those bidders. For example, if Google, Firefox, and Real offer Dell millions to make Google, Firefox, and Real the default search, browser, and media player, respectively, Microsoft should be allowed to outbid Google, Firefox, and/or Real to make Live.com, IE, and WMP the default search, browser, and/or media player.

Re:Let the bidding begin!

[drinkypoo]

However, to be fair, Microsoft should not be prohibited from being one of those bidders.

The whole reason that we have these restrictions against microsoft, and judgements that match, is that they are a monopoly. The reason they are getting fined etc. is that they are aggressively protecting their monopoly status. Your suggestion would be a step backwards. We do not treat monopolies like other companies, because monopolies are harmful to the entire market.

Re:Let the bidding begin!

[Billly Gates]

Its not bidding. Look at it this way?

Nice computers you are selling I see. It would be a shame if your competitors got Windows Vista and Office 2007 before you did. Think about what that would do to yoru business?

Before MS used to jack up the price something obscene like %500 if you dared included just one pc without Windows with SCO or OS/2. The doj stopped this behavior but now its standard so ms does not have to worry about this anymore.

Today ms, can just use the ...last to recieve updates bit. Or if they really want to appear innocent they could simply let the OEM install Windows Vista when it came out but refused to give them early builds that hte other oem's enjoy. That way it would take weeks or months before their systems on the shelves had what their competitors had.

Also companies like Dell would love to see HP get grilled like this so customers would have to either wait while Bob enjoys Vista or just buy a Dell instead that already has it preinstalled.

Even after 2007?

[Anonymous Coward]

"In a speech hosted by the New America Foundation at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith said these principles will continue to apply after major parts of the U.S. antitrust ruling expire in November 2007."

Oh, I get it. They want to show everyone they have actually reformed, before major parts of the DOJ ruling expire, probably to head off the (distant but still scary) prospect that the rulings might be revisited, extended, or expanded.

Soooo, they're going to polish up that halo *really* shiny.

If they actually do change, personally, I'll start giving them some slack, but I'll wait for actions, not promises.

Hmmm... come to think of it, it might matter whether these terms expire before or after Vista ships in 2007. I'm picturing a big switch somewhere in Vista marked "Break glass in case of DOJ ruling expiration".

Re:Fear of the EU

[I'm Don Giovanni]

You clearly didn't read the full story (which is much larger than the BS slashdot summary regarding search engines), which includes "no punishment" to OEMs. (Not that there's been "punishment" for OEMs bundling other OSes; there were "incentives" (i.e. discounts on Windows) not do so in the past.)

As far as the EU, I don't think Microsoft "fears" the EU, though they are sick of their bullshit, and want to be done dealing with them. That said, I don't think it has much to do with the EU. For the EU, Microsoft would just make an "N" version of Vista. No, this has more to do with the USDOJ, which has a constructive relationship with Microsoft on these issues (as evidenced by the mutual agreement to extend the antitrust oversight agreement beyond Nov 2007 (when it was due to expire) to 2012 and beyond), rather than the confrontational relationship that the EU prefers. And the EU has gotten nothing but "N" XP (rejected by the populace) and a couple of fines, because MS has no respect for the EU's (actually, just the EC's) process. The USDOJ is getting real results, the results that you guys have been clamouring for for years.

You can easier attract flies with honey than flypaper (or something like that lol). A constructive relationship based on mutual respect gets more results than confrontationl tactics based on mutual enmity.

Re:Oh my!

[marcello_dl]

Sure it is a major redirection, pity that it doesn't likely come from mr. Gates waking up one morning and realizing his enterprise behaved just like the mafia, but from antitrust and competition. Even if it takes years to complete, this is a tactical, not a strategic move. BTW, granparent doesn't deserve negative moderation.

Maybe "principled & transparent" == "open sour

[intrico]

I think it would be perfectly logical to see Microsoft gradually move away from the closed-source model. I would not be surprised if they announce a decision to make Windows open-source a few years from now, seeing as how the entire economics of the enterprise software industry is moving towards consulting and support as a primary source of revenue (e.g., Oracle, Red Hat, Sun and others). (After a complete change in leadership of course, with gates and others moving out of the picture.) The basic economic forces of supply and demand in a highly competitive enterprise software market dictate that they logically should not be able to rely on revenue from software licensing for very long into the future. Their monopoly days are over.

Re:Oh my!

[megaditto]

fact that Microsoft (may) be allowing more free and open competition, including the actual removal of their own applications like IE, is pretty significant.

Exactly as significant as a prison warden allowing the inmates to request an uninstall of toilets and beds from their cells!

Absolutely no 'good will" on Microsoft's part; they are just electing the lesser evil: open up a little, or lose customers to KDE/Gnome and get sued to boot. What IS significant here is that Microsoft apparently feels threatened.