Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Softens Up On Competition
shaneFalco writes "The BBC is reporting that Microsoft, prompted in part by their recently legal woes in the European Union will allow vendors to set non-Microsoft applications as the default on Windows computers. This initiative is part of a dozen 'tenets to promote competition' that the company is adopting in the face of stiff criticism of business tactics in Europe. Other tents include not retaliating against businesses that promote non-MS software, and a relaxing of restrictions on licensing Windows-related patents." From the article: "The principles might mean that some manufacturers will promote search engines other than Microsoft's own, Mr Smith said - an apparent reference to Google, which has looked to be on a collision course with Microsoft over search engines. 'There are certain steps we can't take that would have been permitted a decade ago,' the executive added." We touched on this announcement yesterday, but details on the '12 tenets' were less clear at that point.
Is there any requirement that we won't see a replay of the Opera-Bork-Bork-Bork fiasco in Microsoft ensuring competitor's components are noticeably more clunky than their own?
i still don't like it, keep the playing field a bit tilted
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The hell? They will ALLOW them? Where does it say that Microsoft has a say in what is set up as default in the OS? Do they seriously think they can make people only use their searches/office/whatever?
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
How precisely do they propose to differentiate between "retaliation against a computer maker" and "business decisions" due to any other little thing the maker may do that they decide they don't like? Would it be possible to argue that regardless of the actions of the maker, Microsoft could never stop selling to them or change pricing ever again without risking constant litigation? Seems like a disaster waiting to happen either way once a precedent is set(either against or for Microsoft).
Ice Cream has no bones.
I hail Microsoft's perceived "softening" as a positive step albeit driven largely by legal fiat. However, one need only read this article on Microsoft and their stance against Google to realize and recognize Microsoft retains its hubris and aggressive stance.
Consider from the above article:
The hubris is Microsoft's assumption anyone getting business is taking food off of their plate, or something they consider rightfully theirs, as opposed to customers who make choices in a free marketplace. Fortunately the marketplace is tipped somewhat more towards a level playing field (not all the way, but better than before).
Laptops also have considerably slower hard drives with slower access times. Many of the higher capacity laptop drives (100-120 GB) are also 4200 RPM which pales in comparison to the standard 7200 RPM of desktop drives with much larger capacities. 5400 RPM laptop drives are quite a bit more expensive than 4200 RPM drives, and that means most entry level and midrange laptops are going to use slow drives.
Not really. Just Microsoft trying to squeeze money wherever they can find it. Since the current Windows OS and hardware is good enough to run everything out there, there's no strong motivation for Joe Blow and Missy Six-Pack to upgrade Windows Vista. No upgrades, no money. The economics is pretty simple at this level.
Wasn't there recently an article about Microsoft telling Google to not compete with them?
It's more than that. It's (pick one or more of the following):
( ) Microsoft's meeting antitrust settlement requirements by not only providing mechanisms to change the defaults, but actually implementing the GUI to make it possible for non-geeks to do so
( ) Political spin/marketing bragging about how they're good guys when in reality they were forced to do this
( ) Unlike Google, known for making efforts to "do no evil" Microsoft is known primarily for doing evil and then not apologising afterward. Making their meeting DoJ requirements look like new value-added features is great marketing. "Hey we let you change small aspects of your desktop, new in Vista. Upgrade your PC today!"
( ) Microsoft's wanting to avoid further extensions of antitrust settlements
( ) Ballmer didn't feel like throwing any chairs yesterday (I kid, I kid)
Previously if you wanted to change some of these settings it was digging through the registry (a frightning prospect for Mr. Old School businessman who can barely master Hotmail or for Joe Sixpack) or knowing about and downloading xteq's xsetup (or for some settings, TweakUI from Microsoft Powertoys)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
If you're a hardware distributor you'd like to control what software is installed when you sell your computers. You'd like for your users to have a pleasant and unique experience right out of the box. If the OS distributor controls the defaults you've lost a slight potential edge in the market. If the OS defaults are customizable, however, you have more control over the computers you sell.
Developers: We can use your help.
Not quite... There are (were?) big discounts to OEM's (Gateway, Dell) on licenses for Windows, assuming certain conditions were met.
For example, Gateway wanted realplayer (god, no!) as the default. However, to do so, they would lose some/all of their discount. It doesn't hurt gateway to not bundle it, and it's good for them.
I think that's the reason why the anti-trust case came up. As far as I know, they were stifling competition by "forcing" (for lack of a better term - incentivizing?) them to bundle/make default/use exclusively Internet Explorer. So, (not sure of the extent) they would lose their discount if they even bundled netscape.
None of this is aimed at the consumer. None of the problems they're addressing deal with the user.
However, what I'm really excited about is the opening of protocols they said. Stuff like easy domain login can now be focused on, and existing bugs can be removed. Nice!
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Except, of course, that for major distributors there tend to be some nice little "perks" and "discounts" and "value-added benefits" that are so large they affect the overall cost of the product to the vendors. If 90 out of 100 vendors buying those bulk licenses qualify for those "discounts" because they sole-source their setups from Microsoft, and the other 10 don't get the discounts even if they buy the same number of licenses, then they've been retaliated against.
Microsoft got cought doing exactly this sort of thing before their last brush with the US Department of Justice: we'll see if htey begin to stop doing it after this lawsuit.
Huh, maybe their respective 95%/5% market shares have something to do with that decision?
All I can see on the list are;
- the pretty obvious (eg we "allow" other firms icons !)
- what they have been *forced* to do under US and EU antitrust rulings (eg interoperability and equal deals to OEMs).
Or am I missing something ?