EU Think Tank Urges Full Windows Unbundling

leffeman writes "An influential Brussels think tank is urging the European Commission to ban the bundling of operating systems with desktop and laptop computers. The Globalisation Institute's submission to the Commission says that bundling 'is not in the public interest' and that the dominance of Windows has 'slowed technical improvements and prevented new alternatives entering from the marketplace.' It says the Microsoft tax is a burden on EU businesses: the price of operating systems would be lower in a competitive market. This is the first time a major free-market think tank has published in favour of taking action against Microsoft's monopoly power."

Comments

Natural Monopoly

[Nymz]

FTA - "Operating systems are not a natural monopoly..."

I know what a regular monopoly is, but what's a natural one? Rather than being imposed by government, is it instead being imposed by Mother Nature? For instance, women have a 'natural monopoly' on pussy.

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't have a monopoly without government assistance, so any market in which a monopoly exists is not a truly free one. This is one of the more blantently incorrect statements I've read lately. There is no part of it which is correct. Read some economic theory before you try to talk to others about monopolies.

Unbundling..

[MBraynard]

I also look forward to having the software unbundled from my TV, cell phone, DVR, Xbox360, car, and wrist-watch.

Re:Waves of Mass histeria

[LynnwoodRooster]

I'd say let's acknowledge the de-facto standard that is Windows. It's so pervasive and so dominant on the desktop that to try to push away from it is a very big waste of time and energy. Could we push away? Sure, but it's going to be VERY expensive in terms of time, money, and energy.

How about trying to work with Microsoft, in terms of applications and extension of the platform? Cede the desktop, because for all the "wins" announced on /. it's still years and years away from any significant changes. Right now, the ISO, the entire IT world is so rife with partisanship that I don't think the best standards are approved WITHOUT a strong political bent. Witness the cults that spring up around MS or Linux or Mac. No, there's a de-facto standard, and to ignore that is at best arrogance, at worst folly.

Personally, J6P just wants a system that works, with an interface they recognize, that the computer geek down at the local superstore can help them troubleshoot. Intuitive interfaces, something that runs any of the software they can buy at that superstore, and works with the other consumer electronics products that they buy.

If F/OSS folks want to make inroads into the consumer market, then give up trying to overthrow MS - it's a battle that's going to probably never be won, and is going to consume immense resources. Rather, focus on making a new version of Office, or an integrated media player that's seamless with hardware and whatever media source you've got.

And give it a UI and connectivity to other applications that fits in with what J6P understands and is used to. New for new's sake is a paradigm that's great for pushing the envelope, and even better at making companies disappear...

Re:Waves of Mass histeria

[drsmithy]

Imagine a future version of the same field, but with "MacOS XVIII", "Plan 10" "FreeBeOS", "ReactOS Hurd", "AmigaOS Phoenix", etc, etc in the list. Real choice, in other words.

If those platforms offer meaningful advantages, then they will be available without forcing vendors to sell and support them.

If they don't, then you are enforcing "choice" for the sake of it. Which is not only inefficient, but damaging to the market. Why should a hardware vendor be forced to support every platform ? Why couldn't he concentrate on only selling high-end Linux workstations for video editing.

Now imagine a world where you could click any one of those OS choices and be confident your data would be usable, that you could connect to any network you needed to, that your investment in software would be portable. A world where you could choose your OS based on price, performance and personal taste, not on format lockin and obfuscated communication protocols.

A world where innovation is impossible, because developers are locked into a rigid and predefined set of of functionality and implementations.
A world where no vendor can specialise in a specific section of the market market, and concentrate on providing the best service possible solely to it.
A world where "choice" is effectively nonexistant, because every choice delivers the same result.
A world of enforced, compulsory mediocrity.

No, thank you.