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.
The article gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling for Microsoft. They really are nice people after all. They are even going through a twelve step program to make themselves better.
Now with 50% more junk preinstalled with every PC.
One of the 12 tenants is 'Promising not to retaliate against computer makers that support non-Microsoft software.'
Hmm.. does a slightly higher pricing structure count as 'retaliation', or is that just good business sense? I guess it's a matter of semantics.
-
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.
Sure, YOU can, but until now most OEMs were contractually obligated not to change the defaults to non-MS alternatives.
Having OEMs ship with non-MS defaults is big, because the vast majority of users will pretty much stick with default settings in most cases.
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).
and pray it works
This is not about consumers changing settings on thier own computers. It is about letting manufacturers change the setting on machines that they sell to the public with Windows installed. The real reason that this is a big deal is because most users (those who do not read /.) are not going to go through the effort to track down a replacement for Windows Media Player and then set it as the default for all files. This is especially the case when MS makes it so WMP bugs the crap out of you if it is not the default for everything under the sun.
All this will do is start a bidding war on the oem's end. Besides, installing the next version of messenger (or a MS download of any kind) will have a screen that will have all the default options revert back to MS's settings. .mp3 will be associated with Musicmatch jukebox or some equally bloated shitty app. I think we can all agree that is a loss.
It doesn't really matter what browser they use, if the homepage is msn.com, they still get their unique visitor and ads displayed numbers bumped.
OTOH,
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
I just went through a bunch of hits from Google news as well as the TFA - hundreds of stories all saying Microsoft has published these 12 tenets, not one actually listing them. WTF?
Oh no... it's the future.
1. The first principle goes to the installation of any software.
"We will ensure that Microsoft will design Windows in ways that make it easy for people to add non-Microsoft features," Smith said.
No. 2 is easy access: Computer manufacturers are free to add icons, shortcuts and the like to the Windows Start menu and other places used to access software programs so that customers can easily find them, Microsoft said.
No. 3 is defaults. Microsoft will design Windows so as to let computer manufacturers and users set non-Microsoft programs to operate by default in certain categories, such as Web browsing and media playback, Microsoft said; computer manufacturers can set these defaults as they please when building new PCs.
No. 4 is exclusive promotion of non-Microsoft programs, Smith said.
"This is an important new issue in regard to things like media and Internet search, as we are broadening to adopt this for Internet search as well," he said, indicating that Microsoft's fierce competition with Google aside, the company is dedicated to this principle.
Guru Jakob Nielsen offers advice on designing applications for usability. Click here to watch the video.
No. 5 is business terms: Microsoft will not retaliate against any computer manufacturer that supports non-Microsoft software, Smith said.
To provide transparency on this point, Microsoft will post a standard volume-based price list to a Web site that is accessible to computer manufacturers, as it has under the U.S. antitrust ruling, he said.
Principle No. 6 deals with APIs. Microsoft provides the developer community with a broad range of innovative operating system services, via documented APIs (application programming interfaces), for use in developing state-of-the-art applications.
And the U.S. antitrust ruling requires that Microsoft disclose all of the interfaces internal to Windows called by "middleware" within the operating system, Smith said.
Principle No. 7 involves Internet services, where Microsoft is contributing to innovation in the area of Internet services with services that the company calls Windows Live, Smith said.
"Microsoft will design Windows Live as a product that is separate from Windows. Customers will be free to choose Windows with or without Windows Live," the company said.
No. 8 is Open Internet access, where Microsoft will design and license Windows so that it does not block access to any lawful Web site or impose any fee for reaching any non-Microsoft Web site or using any non-Microsoft Web service, Smith said.
Principle No. 9 is "no exclusivity," Smith said.
The U.S. antitrust ruling provides that Microsoft may not enter into contracts that require any third party to promote Windows or any "middleware" in Windows on an exclusive basis and Microsoft has pledged to continue this, Smith said.
Next Page: Microsoft's pledges.
Principles 10 through 12 deal with interoperability for users and say that Microsoft will make its communications protocols available for commercial release, the company will generally license patents on its operating system inventions, and the company is committed to supporting industry standards.
Oh no... it's the future.
OEMs have been able to change the defaults since the settlement of the US Antitrust case. Which is obvious if you've seen a Dell from the last few years.
"We touched on this yesterday, but the 12 tenets weren't clear at that point ... ", so we touch on it again tdday, but still fail to provide the official URL to the actual 12 tenets (a URL which was released yesterday, so the 12 tenets were indeed clear).
Anyway, here's the official link:
Windows Principles: Twelve Tenets to Promote Competition
(Note that according to the text, the tenets are in keeping with and following the spirit of the MS/USDOJ settlement, rather than having to do with EU fines (though the latter likely played a role).)
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Other articles on this subject state that Microsoft intends to publish a volume-based price list for OEMs. As long as they conform to that price structure, they can't be accused of retaliation.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Wasn't there recently an article about Microsoft telling Google to not compete with them?
Sorry to break it to you, you're not a capitalist. Capitalism is primarily about the private ownership of the means of producion. Under the free market school of capitalism, which is what the US follows, anybody who is making disproportionate profits, like MS, is rapidly brough back into line by the competition. If the market becomes distorted by a monopoly or a oligopoly, it is the duty of the government to bring the balance of power back into check so the the free market may operate. The approach you describe is called anarcho-capitalism, that's the brilliant school of thought that leads to depressions and support for it basically all but died in 1930s.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
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
Mmmm.. Donuts
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.
Huh, maybe their respective 95%/5% market shares have something to do with that decision?
Does this mean I can get my dual boot BeOS/Windows computer now?
What?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Set Program Access and Defaults was definitely NOT in Windows 98.
It was added to Windows XP in SP1, and in Windows 2000 SP3. And it certainly does not allow one to set a default search engine.
As for setting a search engine, TweakUI for Win9x allowed you to set a non-MSN search engine for Internet Explorer, going back to IE5, if I recall corectly. I have no idea if TweakUI for Windows XP lets you do this, but considering IE7 lets you select a search engine in the exact same way Firefox does, I'd say they've finally done something ok.
What you've got there is called a "strawman" rebuttal: a reply to a different point than the one at hand.
The problem isn't with them bundling. Never was. The problem is what they'll do to vendors who want to build different bundles, what they'll do to customers that want different software. Microsoft doesn't like to talk about those parts. They want to talk about everything but those parts. They got convicted of a felony for those parts. They act all hurt when people remember and act accordingly. All of this is very familiar to anyone who's ever had to deal with bad-prognosis 12-steppers. But, hey, at least they're showing up for the first meeting.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Which reminds me of why MS started "giving away IE. As was determined at the anti-trust trial, MS gave IE away "to cut off Netscape's air supply." Netscape sold its browser, and it was the standard when I first got on the internet in 1995. How long would Chrysler stay in business if GM decided to destroy Chrysler by giving away GM cars--and had pockets deep enough to do it? Not long. And that's how long Netscape stayed in business. MS decided to destroy Netscape's because a) Microsoft was afraid of Netscape, and b) Netscape refused to participate in an illegal scheme to divide up the browser market. Period. An added bonus of giving I.E. away was that MS did not have to pay Spyglass royalties. MS did not write IE from scratch, it liscensed the code from Spyglass, promising to pay Spyglass a percentage of IE's sales price. Spyglass eventually threatened MS with an audit & got $8 million. One stone, two birds. MS killed Netscape because Netscape refused to participate in an illegal deal. Why dis MS screw Spyglass? Perhaps it was just MS's way of saying, "Thanks for the code."
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
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 ?
The question I have is, how many of these OEM's are actually going to bother changing all the possible options?
Okay, so someone like Dell might because they can make some extra money but if the large majority of the others simply don't bother then this change of policy by Microsoft won't equate to much for the average purchaser.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
I can't see it because of all the AOL FREE OFFER, etc. icons all over the damn place.
- chrish