Slashdot Mirror
Software Makers Lobby EU Against Microsoft
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Adobe and Symantec are lobbying EU regulators for action against Vista, the Wall Street Journal reports. Adobe is calling for Microsoft to be barred from building into the OS free software that competes with Acrobat. From the article: 'Adobe and Symantec have told EU regulators that Vista has put them squarely in Microsoft's cross hairs. Symantec is concerned that Vista will direct consumers toward a Microsoft-designed security console, or box that shows what level various security functions, such as an Internet firewall, are set on. The rival company wants to be able automatically to override the Microsoft template with its own design and features, as it has been allowed to do in the past.'"
Actually, i'm with microsoft on this one.
Symantecs OS invading suite of crappy tools just sucks.
Integrating PDF generation into applications and office suites ist also a MUST.
Microsoft is doing the right thing here. And i won't whine for symantec, they just made all the veritas products more sucky.
Microsoft is going to have to learn that it needs to try to work with the companies that make software for their systems. An OS that does not fulfill the users needs and expectations should be replaced with one that does. It is only a matter of time before Microsofts obsession with hurting the developers and end-users comes back and bites them....
...to worry about. Neither software company has products as broad reaching as say... Netscape? I agree that if Microsoft is actually barring the 3rd party software from running at all, that's a bad thing. But defaulting to a Microsoft offering isn't necessarily a bad thing. Considering Microsoft's history, it's highly likely that their firewall and Acrobat-like software will be quite lacking. All the more reason I run... Linux.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
What is good for Adobe in this case is good for us.
.doc file if I send them as a PDF I know it's going to work. Likewise a lot of people send me PDF... if they start sending me MS-PDF-Ripoff files I'm probably not going to be able to read them and I certainly won't be able to write them with any degree of confidence.
PDF is a standard that Linux and OS X are well brought into. While I worry about my documents turning up mangled if I send them as an OO.o produced
While I'm happy to see Adobe get a competitor this is a clear case where MS will be able to use their monopoly (Office and Windows) to overnight destroy an existing market. While any other company should be allowed a fair go, in this case it is in everyones interest to:
Force MS to comply with the PDF standard or
Force MS to only do this if their new standard is genuinly open (with no usage restrictions) or
Not distribute a product in this space.
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
I own an Apple.
Last night I was at a friend's house, he had just gotten a Dell. He asked me to help him get it up and running.
It's HILARIOUS that the first 2 items that come up are
1. McAfee telling you if you want to have them setup a firewall and spyware program.
2. Microsoft asking if you want to have it automatically download updates and also setup IT'S firewall program.
Completely comical. I was laughing inside saying to myself, I'm really happy with my Apple.
Looks like Carl's got the Slashdot crowd eating out of his hand. He sure knows how to keep himself employed and keep the big bucks rolling in.
Everytime he writes an article, just submits it to Slashdot. Keeps his wallet and his head fat.
The things Apple continually receives praise for and advertises about, included applications and higher security, Microsoft gets sued over. Yeah, that's fair.
They must know the words "anti-trust" by now. I just hope that the fine which they are given if they actually go ahead with this actually constitutes more than they made on this. There is no excuse for attempting to keeping rival companies at a disadvantage - they already have all the OS market.
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Now I know that most of us love to hate Microsoft, but hey, we've got plenty of choices. You could run any Linux distro. You could run any version of BSD. You could get a Mac. You could stay with Windows 98. Heck, there are probably about ten dozen other OSes out there. You don't HAVE to run Vista. So hate them all you want, but for once, let's be fair:
If it's ok for Apple to build something that competes with Adobe PDF into Mac OS X (I think it's called Quartz or something like that), then why isn't it OK for Microsoft to continue copying Apple's innovations and doing so as well? We can't have a double standard that says it's ok for most companies to do that, but not Microsoft because they're the nasty 8000 ton gorilla. And I sure as heck wouldn't want to see Apple being forced to remove Quartz from OS X and replace it with some hinky dinky GUI from the 1980's, just because NOBODY can use this PDF nonsense. So let Microsoft do their thing, and let's all of us refuse to drop hundreds more dollars on this Vista garbage rubbish trash, and use an operating system of our choice. Heck, if you run a business and need to interoperate with a bunch of things, Macs look hot on an office desk, run really well, are easy to use, don't crash often, are easy to administrate, and can run just about any commercial software. (Even if not ported to OS X, VMware will be coming out soon, and you can run your ONE app that won't run in a Windows 95, 98, Me, NT, 2000, XP, or heck, even Vista, box, if that's what you want to do.
Market shares aside, we all know (at least if we didn't completely close our eyes to the outside world, aka nature) that monocultures are very susceptible to vermins. Which made pesticides a necessity.
It's the same with computers, even though the "vermin" is man made. The more computers run on the same OS, office suit, picture and document viewers and even security software, the more those products become a target for malware. Simply because you can gain a lot of impact with a single piece of malware. You can already see that in the dominance of Windows-related malware in the wild. Yes, malware for Linux and OSX has been written, but almost every piece was more a proof of concept that it is possible than a widespread attack, which we only get to see on MS-based OSs.
Do we want the same with picture viewers and other software? It's not like it ain't been there before. WMF-exploit, JPG-exploit, but they all relied on bugs in widespread software.
If there is any way to increase security, it's not by installing AV software from the biggest OS manufacturer. That AV soft will be broken, because it has to be broken. You can already gain a lot of inherent security by not being part of the monoculture. Instead of defending against more and more "electronic vermin", you can simply ignore them. Because for your choice of software, there is none.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Operating systems should be secure and should come with a firewall.
I can understand adobe's reasoning.
"Security" software companies only exist becuase ... windows didn't have or provide adequate security. Or due to bugs in the OS which were exploited. They're basically parasitic entities.
Now MS is trying to fix this with Vista.
So basically, the logic being put forth is: Our business model is based on your inability to put out a secure product. Your attempt at putting out a secure product is going to break our business model, and thus our business.
- Roach
I think Microsoft should be allowed to add any export-to-pdf or PDF print filters it wants to, obviously having to be compliant with the standard if they use the term PDF anywhere. I don't think anything built into explorer other than thumbnail preview should be allowed. They should be able to make a PDF reader and browser plugin that is totally interchangeable though.
For Symantec's complaint. I think MS should be allowed to have a firewall integrated into the system. If they make a shitty one than turn it off and load a third party firewall. But I don't think anything else should be integrated. Antivirus, ad-blocking, spyware monitoring should all be external to the system I think. Although I think a case could be made for spyware monitoring.
The most frustrating thing to me is that Microsoft cannot even get the basics of their OS working right. All the security holes, inefficiencies, bloat etc. keep getting worse, yet instead of working on the real problems, they continue to tack on more proprietary stuff to suck in consumers. The UI problems with Vista are bad enough. If you include the nasty slow network stack (3rd parties are now offering network cards to bypass the mess to improve performance), nag-ware as opposed to proper security, etc. I think Microsoft is going to loose more than the respect of software developers. Looks like just another closed platform.
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
It's here: http://malfy.org/
The first thing you see after logging into RC1 is a screen trying to sign you up to Windows Live OneCare and others linking to Windows Live which is MS online search & email capabilities. It's no wonder that companies are going nuts.
You know, Adobe could just make their own OS.
Amiga based or something.
Microsoft makes the most secure products and OS on the planet
MS is not doing anything it hasn't already repeatedly done to an uncountable number of small developers: rolled good ideas into the OS. So now the practice is going to hurt some of the bigger players in the pond: but the trend was set for this almost from the beginning.
On the positive side this may help encourage more of the larger software companies to step up their alternative OS/Linux system development and help migrate some % of their users away from MS. A small hedge against becoming completely obsolete...
So will Adobe be going after Apple with regard to Acrobat and PDFs?
"Adobe is calling for Microsoft to be barred from building into the OS free software that competes with Acrobat." When a document format is open... wouldn't what Adobe is asking for be anti-competitive instead of what Microsoft is doing?
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
It's only going to get worse for companies like Symantec and Adobe. Building software on the Windows platform brings the advantages of a large market. The disadvantage is that Microsoft is not in the business of creating a platform for developers, they're in the business of selling software licenses. The licenses get sold because people are addicted to the platform, not because people can protect it with Symantec products.
And Adobe's complaints really surprise me. OS X has been able to export anything to PDF - a relatively open format - for years, and I can do the same thing on KDE.
Windows is a shaky foundation to build a business on - albeit a potentially profitable one until Microsoft decides to assimilate your functionality.
A while back, in the early 90's there was a statistic being bandied about, how there were gonna be far more lawyers in this country than engineers. And I recall someone (my Dad, prolly) saying "Yeah, we wont be able to invent anything new but we sure will be able to sue each other over it." That's whats happening here.
No one will make the claim that MS has the best product out there for anything except maybe Office and Visual Studio. Certainly NOT the best OS available when rated by security or stability (especially when compared to price). The major reason a lot of people buy MS is because it's pushed at them by the preponderance of available software.
See, if Adobe and Symantec wanted to put an end to Microsoft's monopoly they could have a long time ago. They could have joined the LSB project, they could have contributed to OpenGL and OpenAL, they could have released commercially supported apps for Linux or BSD. They could have helped to bring free, open OS'es into the mainstream. Then they could not have been locked out at any level.
Instead they have more lawyers than engineers. Instead of producing a varied line of products and diversifying their business they depended on one line of income from th MS user base. Instead of helping the industry avoid this pitfall they sat back and did very little.
There are a lot of proverbs to quote here...
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
You get what you deserve.
Dont put all your eggs in one basket.
Here's the thing. It's not too late. Fire some lawyers, hire more engineers, and mostly STOP MAKING MS SOFTWARE. Support Novell or work out some sort of corporate alliance to co-brand a commercial distro of something open source. get off the MS playing field and take your ball with you.
They shouldn't have anything to worry about.... Unless they're afriad that a potentially poorly done Microsoft product is going to outdo them at what they do best - which appears to be their thinking, I suppose?
int cents = 0;
cents += 2;
PDF is a public format(anyone may create applications that read and write PDF files ), OO.org can export to pdf, why M$ should not be allowed to use it?
In order to use PDF or XPS in Office 2007, you have to download a separate plug-in instead of having it included by default.
I don't see the release of Vista's built-in document format hurting Adobe. Adobe still has their markets cornered with software like Acrobat, and Photoshop, and Illustrator (and now Flash) in the Print world which, realistically, is its one and only cash cow. Besides if Microsoft stays true to its track record by leaving too much of a bad taste in the mouth of the printing world with crap like Publisher, there aren't going to be many designers and industries leaping to make the switch.
True. Most development on the Windows platform is substandard both in terms of functionality and innovation. To be honest I am a bit surprised that neither company sees the comeptition from Microsoft as a good thing since all corporations exist to make money and you can't make money without competition...
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Probably no spelling mistakes in his submissions or articles either, which is more than we can say for 50% of the crap that ends up on the slashdot front page. If the editors are worried about this guy raising standards too much, they can always edit shum glarign mishtake (sic) into his submissions.
Adobe and Microsoft are both on the top of my 'Hated Companies' list. To see them go head-to-head is an interesting thing for me. I know that many people will disagree with me, but I quite honestly hate the PDF format. While I recognize that it has some conveniences, it is much larger than it needs to be, and the fact that you can only read and edit them with expensive proprietary software (which is also bulky) doesn't help. (I know that there are other PDF programs, but *most* people only know of Acrobat)
Microsoft should be fixing its problems and not installing a security "product" for cover. Symantec ( or whoever from security industry ) is right. It's their business and they have the right to complain. Microsoft's approach is incorrect from its the core.
Microsoft has two options.
1) Continue to produce a less than optimally secure product. Symantex thrives, and the world still bashes MS for putting out an insecure OS. Except now since Symantec legally FORCED them to release an insecure OS which they KNEW to be Insecure they can be sued for producing a known faulty product.
2) Integrate better security to show you're trying to fix the problems in the OS (which is what Symantec has made it's livelihood doing for MS) and have Symantec sue you for being evil enough to produce a good product which makes theirs less needed or obsolete.
As for the Adobe part... If Adobe makes PDF an open standard, and MS implements the open standard then Adobe doesn't have a leg to stand on. Or will we see a new version of GPL licensing that says "anybody can use this, except Microsoft".
There was a time when companies made great money providing cup holders you could put into your car. In time, cars started having cup holders built into them.
The lesson here is. INNOVATE and make money, continue to INNOVATE to keep making it. Stop innovating and stop making money. If you can't innovate? LITIGATE!
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
Windows Vista RC1 lets you create XPS in any application, using a printer that saves to XPS. So Office 2007 will need the plug-in to add it to the Save menu, but you can use the printer to work around this. Obviously this doesn't apply to Windows XP/2k/2k3, unless Microsoft releases an update to add this printer.
To the extent Adobe and friends succeed at keeping the stack of software that comes with Windows incomplete, Linux will have and edge because it can still offer everything for free.
To the extend that Microsoft grows the stack of software it offers with Windows, the larger the surface area becomes over which their products have potential to look inferior with those offered by the rest of the industry.
At some point it gets ridiculous as far as people suing M$ for adding more features. If there were a company trying to sell a file manager, do you really think they should sue MS for including one in Windows? If that were the case, you'd have to strip Windows down to being just a kernel for people to quit suing because Windows built in a feature that their product does... I'm not about to shed any tears because Symantec and Adobe hitched their wagons to the wrong team... there needs to be alternatives to the MS products, but suing because MS moved into your turf is just lame. You had a good run selling your products, but now you may have stiff competition... deal with it... make your product significantly better than theirs, and slash prices. I'm certainly no lover of M$ either, but this could easily get RIDICULOUS.
Microsoft is not integrating its own PDF creation software into Vista. Microsoft is building software into Vista that reads and writes a Microsoft-created file format called XML Paper Specification (XPS). This is what Adobe is protesting. Adobe would prefer that it was PDF.
Adobe made PDF a standard because it was counting on people integrating it into their apps. What Adobe wasn't counting on is Microsoft coming along and saying, "Screw that, we don't want your standard."
Either way, it still sounds like sour grapes to me.
Breakfast served all day!
They can do whatever they want to (they already do and the law be dammned) in the 32 bit space.
I'd nail 'em to the 32 bit platform and have an unfetered and uncluttered space for the 64 bit platforms.
In time Microsoft would die and we'd just get over it.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
....if they made the infrastructure more secure. Right now Symentec, et al, are providing bandaids around the wounds....and the complaint is that MS also wants to sell band aids. MS could win by simply healing the wounds in the first place. The AV makers would go out of business but *shrug* people would actually have more secure computers.
Problem is, MS has never really done what it would really take to solve the problem
"if I send them as a PDF I know it's going to work."
I keep getting PDF files that won't render in Acrobat Reader ("the viewer is unable to decript this document") but will render fine in old versions of "gsview". Adobe may be shooting themselves in the foot with badly implemented DRM.
I overheard a secret conversation between two Indians about how they planning to hit MS with so many 0days on the day Vista is released(i.e just after it stops snowing in hell), that they fear for Global Warming implications.
I mean, what are the chances that they would let something like this go unpunished? AV people are some of the best virus writers out there. Norton is a friggin virus. Do you really think they will let MS walk away unscathed?
At this point a document format and accompanying software is an already and increasingly basic tool for a computer. Past precedent aside, it seems awfully strange that such a program, due to legal restrictions, can read documents but not write them. Imagine if new versions of notepad came with such a restriciton.
Besides, if Windows is allowed to have a sophisticated media player program (that has its own format and competes with dozens of other companies) I dont see what the big deal about a document editor is.
As I see it Adobe is the one with the monopoly. Its system of distributing a free program to everyone for reading its format, and selling a really expensive program just to be able to write the format, has gone on for enough years and Adobe has made enough money off it.
Prices and restrictions on a type of program with little need for further major development should go nowhere but down, since distribution is free. Its about time to break the document format barrier with a free/cheap program that can read AND write.
And I will continue to make claims for the ENTIRE community of Anonymous Cowards. You like MS so much? Then own up to it. Wuss.
It seems crazy that a dispute between two US companies is being settled due to EU law. The US has very similar laws in this area, yet the DOJ has proven that they are doing nothing useful about curbing MS.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Symantec should just do what I said yesteday (http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=196996&cid =16141634). Replacing the Security Centre is easy and with the deals Symantec have with Dell, etc. they could easily get it installed on all OEM systems. As for Adobe, well tough luck, thats the game and you didn't play it well enough. They must have known for years MS would do this. They are stupid for not acting earlier.
...what's to stop me from replacing it with a non-functional facade which leaves your box wide open to attack? One that reports that all is well while in fact everything is deactivated?
Perhaps some things *need* to be hard or impossible to replace, to prevent bad guys from replacing them?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Here's my take on this situation.
PDF is an open format, used by many people. Being able to read, and less importantly to write to it is a value to their users. It's kind of difficult to get angry at MS for supporting an open standard, especially if they support it correctly. If they don't, I hope Adobe comes down on them at least as hard as Sun did over Visual J++.
Anti-virus software is necessitated in large part by bugs in Windows or security vulnerabilities in Windows. I'd rather MS fix the bugs than build a tool to catch the exploits of those bugs. I'd also rather they build better security than still more tools to patch over flaws. For vulnerabilities that are less about flaws, I'm okay with them building tools to help here (software firewall, for instance).
In short, suck it up Adobe (so long as they don't corrupt the standard); and, MS, stop making band-aids when you can fix the holes. That said, for both of these issues, I think the world would be a better place if MS designed for the replacement of their tools with third-party tools.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
I'll say it again. I have no idea why any commercial software company writes "general use" software for M$ platform computering. I can list a whole bunch of software that has been killed by M$ versions.
.... inherited from the days of "640k should be enough for anyone". Clean Slate Computers(r)(tm).
If I were president of ANY general purpose software company, I would not tie my income flow to anything that requires M$ anything. I would fire any employee suggesting that the company should.
In Fact, if I had enough capitol, I would design a whole new breed of computers, from the CPU up. One that wasn't tied to bios, chipsets, dos, irq, dma
Starting over from scratch would have to have advantages, no baggage, free to do things "right", including planning for future "enhancements".
Michael
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
They shouldn't have anything to worry about.... Unless they're afriad that a potentially poorly done Microsoft product is going to outdo them at what they do best - which appears to be their thinking, I suppose?
Sigh, you miss the point. Adobe can't do anything about MS fairly competing with them. What MS is doing, however, is unfairly competing. Suppose you have to buy Windows (like most people). It is after all, the only OS that will run most programs. Windows ships with a PDF creation tool. You paid for the developers salaries to create that tool with part of your Windows license fee. You don't have any choice about paying for it. Now, are you going to go and download different tools and pay for them too? Maybe, if they are significantly better. What if the Adobe tools are better, but only a little bit. Are you going to pay for both MS's tools and Adobe's tools, for only a slightly better product? Probably not. So you don't. Capitalism has failed. You just bought an inferior product because MS bundled it. The market did not successfully reward Adobe for making better software.
Fast forward five years. Adobe doesn't make PDF creation software anymore, since they were illegally driven out of the market. Now MS's PDF creation tools are the only one available. It would rule if the PDF creation tools would support 3-D graphics that work with the new 3-D displays everyone is buying. Why should MS spend developer time and money adding that feature? What is their incentive? There aren't any competitors. So go suck an egg. MS is busy creating a new audio editing suite they are going to bundle with Windows. You can just deal with an inferior product from a company with no motivation at all to make their PDF tools better. Capitalism has fallen on its ass and is crying.
I can't believe how many people here on Slashdot don't even understand the basics of capitalism and monopolies. Is Econ 101 no longer a requirement for a bachelors degree?
I didnt mind IE being bundled, I didnt mind Media Player either.
I really dont mind MS bundling some kind of security suite because if it works I'd use it and if not ill get something else. The ability to use PDF's without having to download another program would be nice too and again if a 3rd party app does it better then chances are I'll use it.
What I do mind is a company like Symantec whining about this issue, they have built their whole company on scamming Windows users with their #1 security software that always seems to let you get infected anyways. Im going on 3 years with no dedicated A/V. I scan once a week with AVG and I've been virus free and my system doesnt suffer the horrible slowdown Norton brings with it...sorry now im rambling.
I'd also like to add I really like the new comment system being tested here, its much better and easier to use.
They are actually saying that they wouldn't survive if it wasn't for windows' usual lack of security...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
In related news, aftermarket car alarm manufacturers sue car makers for including car alarms with their cars and making them harder to disable.
Didn't it ever occur to Symantec that a business model that's based around fixing problems in someone else's product isn't sustainable?
Didn't it ever occur to Adobe that, by making their product a commodity, someone might do it cheaper and better?
No, I will not work for your startup
Let them have all their own software! Let them use only their own proprietary formats! Let them force users to install programs they don't want, spyware they don't want, "security updates" they don't want, that would be GOOD! Then they will be SO horrible that everyone will hate them, and switch to other, non-intrusive, FRIENDLY OSes! Let full laze-fair competition destroy their monopolistic greedy schemes by letting them be so visible that everyone will see them and will then know they don't want to touch them with a ten foot pole. Ultimately, consumers will win, because they don't like to get raped. Well, most of them.
(soapbox)The only real threat that needs to be stood up against are patents that attempt to control our access to new technologies, including ideas/software. So long as consumers can always use Firefox for instance, they will never want to use IE if it only comes on an OS that's big and bloated and cost $400 and invasive and loaded with DRM. As long as ideas aren't controlled, consumers can just look into alternate competitive software.(/soapbox)
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
Did anyone who responded to this article actually READ the damn article? MS isn't offering PDF creation in Vista - AT ALL!!! They should, as *nix and OS X have done for years, all OS's should have Print/Export to PDF built into the OS. HOWEVER, MS is planning on releasing Vista with an MS homegrown "PDF Killer". As the MS Office suite moves to XML based file formats, they are building a PDF-Like file export into Vista called XML Paper Specification (or XPS). So all you happy like MS lovers chiming in on this little article, and how MS is entitled to include PDF in Vista since it's an open standard are going to be in for a bit of a surprise when your files come out as "MyHomework.xps".
... I agree on the Symantec=crappy part.
But then, anyone with half a clue is going to be using OpenOffice anyway - and exporting to PDF wont be a problem. Suck on 'em apples Micro$cum! I don't have a problem with MS adding features, and improving file formats. I have a problem with MS forcing your hand and making it difficult to choose something other than MS only solutions. That's what all the anti-trust legal battles were about, and Redmond keeps pushing forward.
It's always fun to see how people are willing to get all riled up about things they won't bother to understand.
um, but yeah
the big point is that in an open Atmosphere (r) Adobe would rise or fall on just its own actions but with Microsoft building things in folks land up gasping for air.
i do think that the Chrome on the MSSC should be customized to show branding but the "builtin" MSChrome should be a simple click to revert to (also it should be required to show "recognized but not ours" for the options)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
how wrong can one post be.
first of all giving away a reader and charging for a writer isn't new. Microsoft does the same thing a free word reader and an expensive office suite to write with or a basic tool (word pad)
writing pdf files isn't hard even on windows you install a free pdf print driver and everything you can print can be a pdf file.
now if you want something a little better then try htmldoc. This program can generate pdf files from a collection of html pages. its sold as a commercial product but is dual licienced under the GPL and if your running ubuntu you can just apt-get it from the main repositories.
The GPL version is very useful.
as a final point even the parent must be aware that creating pdf files is built into openoffice. so the post was just a troll but since i found htmldoc last night I thought others might find it extremely useful especially if they have any ebooks in chm format.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
I both agree and disagree with this: I agree that Antivirus and security companies need a way to plug holes, it sounds like some companies are raising a large fuss about nothing. There will always be needs for competitors to come out with add-on solutions. Look at IE & FireFox. Just because Microsoft does something, doesn't mean they've done it will.
www.atacomm.com - The Leader in VoIP Product Distributi
As there is always a Microsoft vs. EU article on /. I thought this might be interesting reading...
http://www.corpwatch.org/ has a great article on what it takes to lobby the EU.
Right on their front page:
An Insider in Brussels: Lobbyists Reshape the European Union
You know, I really don't understand why the EU is so upset, or why anyone believes this will create an unfair marketplace.
Windows XP SP2 has a built in Firewall. Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool is released every month as a security udpate. Windows Defender is available for download as a solution for many malware concerns. All these are Microsoft products.
Do I use them? No. Why? Because I choose something else.
But, for the purposes of argument, we'll discuss the Firewall only, since it's the only piece that's built in. The Windows Firewall... I don't use it. I turned it off, told Windows not to inform me that I have it turned off, and never looked back.
Just because Microsoft includes their own solutions in their own operating system doesn't mean they're automatically going to lock everyone else out. Symantec and McAfee will still be absolutely free to run around and produce their own software solutions.
As for PDFs... Who cares? Microsoft isn't intending on incorporating PDF support, as far as I know. Even if they do, again, who cares? It's a document format.
The majority of home users aren't intelligent enough to bother updating their systems with their own software solutions. This is fine, though. Dell, and whoever else will continue to provide their own package "deals" that include pre-loaded Symantec, McAfee, Panda, or a hundred other versions of the same generic protection suite. Home users will still fall for the belief that they're under threat by viruses and spyware at every given moment, and will want all the protection they can get.
Business use their own suites in order to protect their information -- I highly doubt they'd stick to the Windows built-in solutions regardless.
And users like you and I? We'll just turn it off, and user our own systems anyway.
In the end, whether Microsoft is imposing a monopoly or not, it's their operating system. You don't HAVE to pay money for it. Have fun with Linux.
If Microsoft wants to lock it's product from other vendors, it should be allowed to do so. If it is bad to lock out these vendors, that will be reflected in it's market share, sales, etc.
If it is bad and they are still locking out these vendors and it's market share, sales, etc. aren't dropping then it can't be that bad, the overall goodness of the product is greater than the overall badness of the product.
So, leave this to the economists, or more specifically the Free Market Economists (The other ones suck).
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I have written about this before I registered with slashdot and have tried to explain a miriad of times the following principal:
...
Windows XP Pro £240 (on amazon) + £30 firewall + £30 Antivirus + £20 anti-malware = £320
Windows Vista £400 (guess based on US pricing) but it does include free firewall, antivirus
The problem with Microsoft bundling in extras is not whether it is convenient or not. It is that you buy the OS and are forced to pay for the bundled products like it or not. You want to run windows you have to pay for the other stuff too. I am not judging quality here (well at least not today), purely that you look at the economics of the situation, how can you compete when your software runs on top of an OS that each new version goes up in prices to cover the cost of competing (replacing) your product. This is the simple abuse of an effective monopoly to the detriment of everyone except Microsoft. When their competitors in security software have been crushed where will the innovation come from?
Microsoft should be forced to strip vista back down to a feature set akin to windows 95. This would enable them to concentrate on getting the core of the OS right, which in itself may kill off the security firms. Then their extra products could be bought by those who want them, making people choose which media player, anti-whatever and PDF solution promotes competition. Competition in most cases is a good thing for everyone, except Microsoft, as products get better because innovation is the key to survival.
A little inconvenience would hopefully pay off with better products and value for the end users.
Just my recurring thoughts.
I wish I had some mod points to mod this insightful (or that I could even log on - slashdot doesn't like my IP range for some unknown reason).
Every time this is discussed so many people trot out the old 'MS is being stopped from inovating/adding features that people want etc.' line, clearly having no clue or even ability to understand what a monopoly is and how damaging monopolistic abuse has been and will be if allowed.
Now the "giant" they once happily supported seems to not need them anymore. If the deal sounds to good to be true, it probably is..
"Microsoft Partner" is an oxymoron.
Adobe stopped supporting Mac with several of it's applications, never added support for Linux.
Symantec never offered decent support for Linux or Mac.
Just wait.. some Governments are getting it next.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Can you explain why your argument applies to a PDF creator, but doesn't apply to, say, the TCP/IP stack ? Or the GUI ? Or the CLI ? Or .NET ? Or Notepad ?
I can't believe how many people here on Slashdot don't even understand the basics of capitalism and monopolies. Is Econ 101 no longer a requirement for a bachelors degree?
I can't believe how many people on Slashdot come up with ridiculously unrealistic examples and analogies to try get everyone else to help carry around the massive chip they have on their shoulder about Microsoft. Yet they do, every day.
Sorry, but you do NOT understand the issue at hand.
PDF creation is not, and never was, a feature of Vista. Vista DOES support a new standard called XPS, like PDF but better for certain types of documents. It is an open format, just like PDF. MS makes no money off it. It's past time there was some innovation in the market PDF currently occupies.
Adobe may have made money off PDF creation software, but they lost their exclusive right to that particular revenue stream when they opened the standard. I have created a number of PDFs. I have never used Adobe software to do it. Why? Simply put, because I don't need to. There are dozens of programs, ranging from open source suites to small stand-alone applications to a wide variety of plugins, virtual printers, and libraries that can create PDFs. Most of these are free.
I hate to see logical (if a little too theatric) argument shot down, but the gloom and doom you're predicting isn't even an issue because your grasp of the current situation is off.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
i find it interesting when the headline says "Software Makers Lobby EU Against Microsoft" that a lot of comments here suddenly back microsofts position.
... IANAL!
2 432485 6230
microsoft would have to pay to integrate pdf into office or the operating system (as apple does) and they (ms) appearently don't like the idea[1] (hint, hint, spyglass). so they seem to try to drive adobe out of this business.
microsoft also tries actively to disallow 3rd party products to hook into the vista kernel which makes it hard to programm such products (if even possible)[2].
now, i am not a big fan of all these 3 companies, but it looks to me as if this is really an attempt to stiffle competition for the good of microsoft. it also looks like they try to use the monopoly power to achieve these goals. IMHO these claims are pretty valid and the results could hurt the customer (you and me)!
and
1] http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/02/1
2] http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/19/20
Can you explain why your argument applies to a PDF creator, but doesn't apply to, say, the TCP/IP stack ? Or the GUI ? Or the CLI ? Or .NET ? Or Notepad ?
Yes. When MS bundled the TCP/IP stack they were not yet a monopoly. There was no existing market for GUIs, CLIs, or basic text editors when MS included them and there is not really one now, either. For it to be a monopolistic abuse, they have to be taking over an existing, healthy market and they have to be leveraging their monopoly to do it.
I can't believe how many people on Slashdot come up with ridiculously unrealistic examples and analogies to try get everyone else to help carry around the massive chip they have on their shoulder about Microsoft. Yet they do, every day.
Examples and analogies do not have to be realistic. They demonstrate or explain a principal so that a reader can comprehend the concept. Once that has happened, that concept can then be applied to more complex, real world situations and provide insight into the underlying mechanics, which are rarely as clear in the real world as in a simplified example. Your assertion that people are prejudiced against MS is an opinion, but a lot of people here have a lot of experience with MS. Having a negative opinion about someone is not prejudice if it is based upon experience. It is making a judgement, not prejudging. Sure some people here probably prejudge MS's actions, but I'm not sure you have enough information to know who.
If you'd like to address why my above explanation prejudged MS or why it is an unrealistic example, I'm all ears.
Right. So you're basically saying Microsoft can no longer compete by giving their product features that their customers want and their competitors have and will have to source that functionality either from third party tools or by migrating to the competing platforms.
How does the consumer benefit here, again ?
Examples and analogies do not have to be realistic.
Yes they do, otherwise they are meaningless. An analogy or example that portrays a highly unlike scenario as "inevitable" is, at best, useless and, at worst, deliberately misleading.
If you'd like to address why my above explanation prejudged MS or why it is an unrealistic example, I'm all ears.
You assert Microsoft will enter $SOFTWARE market with a limited-functionality, bundled tool and because of that, $ESTABLISHED_PLAYERS with comprehensively more functional tools will disappear from that market (unlikely scenario #1). Further, you then imply that *all* competitors in $SOFTWARE will disappear, leaving Microsoft as the sole provider of $SOFTWARE functionality (unlikely scenario #2). Finally, you claim that despite demand for $NEW_FUNCTIONALITY, Microsoft will not implement it, (unlikely scenario #2) nor will $NEW_COMPETITOR appear to meet the needs of those demanding it (unlikely scenario #4).
Your example is unrealistic because it describes a chain of events that matches neither historical anecdote nor reasoned conclusion (how could a market with as incredibly low a barrier to entry as software *not* spawn new competitors ?). It is, to be blunt, sensationalist scare-mongering.
Right. So you're basically saying Microsoft can no longer compete by giving their product features that their customers want and their competitors have and will have to source that functionality either from third party tools or by migrating to the competing platforms.
They can make any functionality they want. They can sell any functionality they want. They just can't force their customers to buy one set of functions if they buy their monopolized set. Dell can sell Windows with all the functions OS X has all purchased just from MS. MS just can't force them to do so, if some other company has a better product and they'd rather use that.
Picture it this way. You sell bread. You make the best and cheapest bread of anyone and work hard to make it so. The electric company decided that since they have a local monopoly on electrical distribution, they're going to bundle a free loaf of bread a week with everyone's electrical service, and raise their rates. Everyone already has bread, because they have to buy electricity because there is only one monopoly provider. You go out of business, despite the fact that you make the best product for the cheapest price. How is this fair? It isn't and it hurt both you and the consumer. You went out of business despite being superior and consumers get an inferior product.
Now suppose instead of bread, you make portable document creation tools. You make the best tools at the cheapest price. MS decided they are going to take over your market by bundling portable document creation tools with their OS. You go out of business and consumer gets an inferior product. It is the same thing and it is illegal for the same reason.
How does the consumer benefit here, again ?
The consumer gets the cheapest, best product as determined by the market, not whatever MS gives them.
Yes they do, otherwise they are meaningless. An analogy or example that portrays a highly unlike scenario as "inevitable" is, at best, useless and, at worst, deliberately misleading.
Hold your horses, you just added a completely new element here. No one said anything about examples or analogies that were wrong in that they portray an unlikely event as inevitable. That is completely new. Obviously a flawed analogy will improperly show a concept. That is not what we're talking about. We're talking about examples and analogies that correctly illustrate a concept. If you can demonstrate the analogy is incorrect (untrue) or that the analogy does not match up to the situation for which it is analogous then obviously it is a poor argument. You can't however, assume all analogies are wrong or to not apply. You have to show how they are wrong conceptually or how they do not map.
You assert Microsoft will enter $SOFTWARE market with a limited-functionality, bundled tool and because of that, $ESTABLISHED_PLAYERS with comprehensively more functional tools will disappear from that market (unlikely scenario #1).
They don't have to disappear, they just have to lose share in the market, despite being a better choice. That does not mean they cease to exist.
Further, you then imply that *all* competitors in $SOFTWARE will disappear, leaving Microsoft as the sole provider of $SOFTWARE functionality (unlikely scenario #2).
You may have inferred that, but I did not imply it.
Finally, you claim that despite demand for $NEW_FUNCTIONALITY, Microsoft will not implement it, (unlikely scenario #2) nor will $NEW_COMPETITOR appear to meet the needs of those demanding it (unlikely scenario #4).
This is what generally happens. MS has no motivation to add any functionality if they own the majority of the market and by owning it they can introduce lock-in factors (proprietary formats, etc.) It is possible a new player will enter the market and provide that functionality, but usually no one is that stupid, since MS can then add the same functionality and put them out of business with their monopoly again. No one wants to
So, like I said, they can't add any functionality to Windows that already exists elsewhere, because that would be "forcing" consumers to buy it, even thought it is included at no cost and consumers are free to choose platforms other than Windows.
Can you please stop contradicting yourself ?
Dell can sell Windows with all the functions OS X has all purchased just from MS. MS just can't force them to do so, if some other company has a better product and they'd rather use that.
Good thing they don't then, right ? Dell can sell any OS they want with their hardware (and do).
Picture it this way. You sell bread.
Your analogy is broken brcause bread and electricity have absolutely nothing in common with each other. Heck, one is a good and the other is a service.
Now suppose instead of bread, you make portable document creation tools. You make the best tools at the cheapest price. MS decided they are going to take over your market by bundling portable document creation tools with their OS. You go out of business and consumer gets an inferior product. It is the same thing and it is illegal for the same reason.
Your analogy is broken because Microsoft *aren't* trying to take over the "portable document creation tools market" (WTF !?) with their basic, bundled tools.
Added to that, it's not a given that "portable document creation" and "operating systems" are disjoint markets.
The consumer gets the cheapest, best product as determined by the market, not whatever MS gives them.
No, they don't. They have to pay *extra money* to get their "portable document creation software" instead of getting it for free.
This is assuming, of course, that all the functionality consumers want is provided by the bundled functionality. If it isn't, then consumers will buy additional software and the whole discussion is moot.
Hold your horses, you just added a completely new element here. No one said anything about examples or analogies that were wrong in that they portray an unlikely event as inevitable.
Seems to me that falls into the bounds of "ridiculously unrealistic".
That is completely new. Obviously a flawed analogy will improperly show a concept. That is not what we're talking about. We're talking about examples and analogies that correctly illustrate a concept. If you can demonstrate the analogy is incorrect (untrue) or that the analogy does not match up to the situation for which it is analogous then obviously it is a poor argument. You can't however, assume all analogies are wrong or to not apply. You have to show how they are wrong conceptually or how they do not map.
Your analogies are wrong because they are not supported by evidence or reasoning.
They don't have to disappear, they just have to lose share in the market, despite being a better choice. That does not mean they cease to exist.
If they are a better choice, they won't lose their market.
You may have inferred that, but I did not imply it.
You most certainly *did* imply it. Indeed, you *specifically stated* it. From your post:
This is what generally happens.
No, it does not. Otherwise, by your logic, Windows would not have improved in the last decade, since Microsoft - supposedly with no competition - has had no incentive to improve their product.
MS has no motivation to add any functionality if they own the majority of the market and by owning it they can introduce lock-in factors (proprietary formats, etc.)
Nevertheless, *they do* improve them. Thus, your argument is wrong, e