Possible Delays for Vista in Europe

tttonyyy writes "After Microsoft was hit with fines for anti-competitive behaviour in 2004 and 2006, it seems that the launch of Vista may be delayed in Europe. Microsoft is blaming this delay on a lack of guidelines from the European Commission. The Commission denies causing any delay, declaring that the impetus is not on them but on Microsoft to produce a product that conforms to the EU competition rules." Further, The New York Times reports "Delaying the introduction in Europe, [members of the European Parliament] said in a letter made public by Microsoft on Thursday, 'would put European companies at a competitive disadvantage with every other company around the world who does have access to these new technologies.'"

Comments

Circuitous logic?

[Red Flayer]

"Delaying the introduction in Europe, [members of the European Parliament] said in a letter made public by Microsoft on Thursday, 'would put European companies at a competitive disadvantage with every other company around the world who does have access to these new technologies.'"

Nice business ya got there... would be a shame if anything 'happened' to it...

Is it me, or is this just yet another example of MS abusing their monopoly? I see the logic, but can't understand the justification for this argument -- MS shouldn't have to comply with anti-monopoly regulations because any delay will hurt European businesses due to MS's monopoly?

Re:Circuitous logic?

[tomstdenis]

I know you're trolling but for the benefit of others...

The argument against MSFT isn't that they have technologies others don't have.

The argument is that they purposefully swindle their customers into using software that is designed to lock them into using a sole vendor [without otherwise good justification]. That they are abusing their POSITION as a large market share holder to FURTHER their lock in.

Arguing for MSFT is akin to saying "Yes MFST, release another product that I can't use as I choose, on the platform of my choosing with the tools of my choosing. I like being forced to use your tools, through out security and inefficiency problems because choice is bad."

There are no technical reasons why [for instance] the Office file formats are not well documented in the public. The *value* of Office is the connectivity and interface of the software. Not the file format. [hint: that's a big reason why people hate OpenOffice]. Releasing the file formats means that you can use third party tools to do things to your documents that you can't with Office [like edit them in GNU/Linux].

Similarly, their stance on DX and the Win32API is not founded in a technological superiority. It's just "different."

Tom

Re:Circuitous logic?

[Red Flayer]

I wasn't trolling at all. I was just commenting on the absurdity of the logic used by MS to persuade the EU courts that any delay in release (due to compliance with anti-monopoly laws) will harm the EU economically. This is especially absurd because the only reason it could harm the EU economically is because of MS's monopoly status. Let's examine this in a little more detail:

Assumption 1 (FTA/S): Having to wait for Vista will harm EU businesses. This may be true for businesses that develop for Vista, since their market will be delayed even further. This may also be true for businesses that depend on newly implemented technology to be included in Vista (like the DRM).

Assumption 2 (mine): If there were real competition to MS, EU businesses would not be dependent on Vista for new tech deployment for them to take advantage of. For example, a competitive media player could also have the requisite DRM necessary to the media companies desire for profits based on restricting media access.

Assumption 3 (the EU courts): MS has abused its monopoly status to maintain that status and to limit competition in products other than OS.

It seems clear to me is that what MS is arguing is that since they have a monopoly, hurting them hurts the consumer of their product. It's my contention (and I'm not the only one) that this is a perfect example to show that monopolies are bad -- lack of an alternative means that some businesses will lose out should there be any interruption of supply by the monopoly. There are other reasons why monopolies are bad, IMO, but MS is using a downside of monopoly existence to justify not having to comply with measures intended to prevent abuse of a monopoly.

Your explanation of how they are violating the anti-monopoly laws is useful, but has nothing at all to do with my point. Are you just hopping onto an early post since those threads get more attention (regrettably)?

competitive disadvantage??

[malsdavis]

"would put European companies at a competitive disadvantage with every other company around the world who does have access to these new technologies."

What Dribble. Does that mean all those companies still using Windows 2000 / NT are at a competitive disadvantage with companies who got conned into upgrading to the virtually identical Windows XP?

I fail to see what competitive advantage Vista will give businesses who upgrade to it immediatly. Maybe companies could run into problems in 5 years time when compatability issues arise, but not in the short/medium term.

Re:Oh please

[cyber-vandal]

It's not MS who've said that but four British MEPs, sadly unnamed, who show that they have the same grasp of technological issues as the average amoeba. I'd like to know who they are so I can set them straight, pointing out that if Microsoft would just obey the law this would be a non-issue.

More loudmout advertising from M$.

[twitter]

Is it me, or is this just yet another example of MS abusing their monopoly? I see the logic, but can't understand the justification for this argument -- MS shouldn't have to comply with anti-monopoly regulations because any delay will hurt European businesses due to MS's monopoly?

Yes, the ultimate harm of monopoly is exclusion. Competitors are not allowed to offer better goods and services and the monopolist is able to deny service to any they please.

This time, it's pure bullshit and won't work. No business that waits for Vista will be at a competitive disavantage. It's the businesses that adopt yet another secret format for communications that will have problems. It is incredible that M$ tries to spin abuse of formats into some kind of advantage. It took years for XP to gain any significant business presence and to this day, many if not most businesses use w2k. Sensible companies store their publications in PDF that can come from any source. We've all been through this song and dance before and most are sick of it. The massive inefficiency of the M$ upgrade train is the motivator for mass migration. Vista is going to flop when people see that it's only feature is buggy access to ancient non free music and movies. Superior alternatives exist and have been adopted by many, such as Lowes, IBM, Chrysler and countless small businesses and individuals. The Microsoft monopoly is cracked and will soon shatter.