Slashdot Mirror
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."
Sounds like this would be more of Apple's problem if this actually went through.
Why should Windows be the only OS singled out to be unbundled? Let's stop these double standards.
All that needs to be done is to allow any customer to refuse the bundling of Windows with a computer and be able to get a refund. It should be the purchaser's choice if he wishes to purchase Windows. I am sick of literally no OEM offering a No Operating System option, when it is so easy to purchase a company with an AMD processor or a Nvidia video card. And since the software itself is protected by an EULA which (as a contract) can be refused, this doesn't really need to be a law change. The customer should not have to jump through hoops to get a Windows refund or a no-OS option.
Back in the 70's, 80's when I was getting into coding (not really; hated it at that time), IBM was THE player. But they were holding back innovation. I became part of the group who was very anti-IBM and pushed both Unix and DOS (later windows). It was then that innovation really came about. MS is in the same boat now. They kill as much innovation as is needed to remain dominant. The best thing that can happen is for Windows to lose their dominance or at the very least, not be able to dictate to the market what will happen.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
No, you're wrong.
Microsoft's monopoly depends on a legally protected special privilege, which is already anti free-market. Removing the privilege would be a difficult option, so attacking one of the symptoms (bundling is also a consequence of monopoly, not just a cause) is being recommended instead.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Exactly. The only thing we really need is the ability to easily purchase a computer with no operating system. This doesn't need a law change either, just enforce the Microsoft EULA. If you refuse the contract (EULA) you are entitled to a refund on the software, and the fact that you have to jump through hoops and get denied repeatedly before you get a refund for Windows can be considered illegal.
Just curious. What is the special privilege you speak of?
You know, I don't find this post funny as much as I find it insightful. If I had a nickel for every time someone called me about something "catastrophically wrong" with their computer and it turned-out to be something as dumb as an icon missing or something wasn't installed at all, I would have enough nickels to buy slashdot!
My $0.02 on unbundling Windows is that it would be a bad thing for the reasons the parent specified. The thing about Windows is: it just freakin' works for the non-technically-inclined. Take this bundling away from them and POOF! They're lost.
The game.
No, you can have a monopoly unless the government interferes. How would you say microsoft assists microsoft? .. other than buying their products I guess
Why stop with a computer. When you buy a car, why allow tires, lights, sound system, seats, brakes, and the stearing wheel to be bundled with the car? Belts must be sold without belt buckles, shoes without shoe laces or velcro straps, lawnmowers without engines, .
The list is endless in the way we are inconvenienced by having to buy a product that works(ish) right out of the box.
It doesn't make sense for modern operating systems to come without a web browser, media player, desktop search, etc. The problem with Windows is not bundled software.
Bingo! This is what I have been saying for many years. Consumers should have the choice to buy ANY computer with their choice of OS or none at all. And if they choose to buy MS-Windows, they will see the price associated with it, not hidden away and pretend it is "free".
For those who want MS-Windows and want a customized install, OEM's can create appropriate "kickstart" CD's to wrap the loading of MS-Windows with all the appropriate drivers and addons. Pop in disk and wait. Plus, no more missing "recovery" discs.
I'm curious also, but to whatever special privilege he's thinking of, perhaps we can add the law's protection of trademarks and copyright? You don't see a dozen companies re-selling their own hacked-up versions of Windows using the Windows and/or Microsoft name.
Copyright, and maybe patents.
What?
But why?
Have a look at this laptop from a second-tier computer builder's website. Scroll about a third of the way down the page to the "Operating Systems" checkbox. Note that you can choose between None, Ubuntu, XP, and a collection of Vista versions.
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.
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.
That's the world Microsoft is fighting against.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
If anything, government is what makes a monopoly like Microsoft possible.
Aside from that, in all modern "free markets", abuse of monopolistic power (as MS has done countless times) is *illegal* and subject to regulation. Or do you think it would be OK if you had to pay $2,000 a month to the monopoly power company for a 1,500ft^2 home?
Monopolies are bad for business, bad for innovation, bad for consumers. Some are unavoidable... but if you can stop a monopoly from ruining consumer choice simply by stating it isn't allowed to "bundle" under other products, then why the hell not?
What would you think if just about every retail TV sold had a Kodak DVD player bundled with it? What if you didn't WANT a Kodak DVD player? What if you wanted a blueray player, or a different brand, or already owned a DVD player and didn't want to pay for one yet again? What if you found out the only way you could avoid that bundle was to buy a few obscure TV models, on-line, but they cost almost the same anyway, since they are obscure? This is the type of market abuse that MS has enjoyed for waaaay too long.
The regulators are not technical people and don't understand that. To make the playing field level, you would have to mandate all hardware makers make all their hardware specs completely available. Bundling or un-bundling Windows won't help so long as you have legions of hardware makers making only Windows drivers for their hardware.
Another thing is, it would have to be mandated that ActiveX on the Public Internet be banned, WMA DRM banned and AAC DRM banned. That would level the playing feild.
As far as I am concerned, Windows is already "Broken" the moment it's installed on the PC. A $400 'new' windows install, gets you a system that can not:
1. Playing DVD's requires EXTRA software (Broken Media Player)
2. Writing and Spell-Checking documents requires EXTRA software (broken wordpad)
3. Email Security requires EXTRA software (broken outlook)
4. viewing certain file types requires EXTRA software (indeo codec, broken due to licenses).
5. Recording sounds longer than 30 seconds requires EXTRA software (broken/useless sound recorder)
6. Internet Security requires EXTRA software (broken Internet Explorer)
7. Unable to set per-user file restrictions, VERY coarse control (broken multi-user capabilities)
So exactly WHAT am I getting for a 400 'Operating System'? what makes it worth 1/3 to 1/2 the price of a new computer?
-Is it the screen savers?
-Is it wordpad / soliarire / reversi?
-Is it Internet Explorer?
-Is it the new backgrounds / widgets?
Someone PLEASE tell me why I should shell out 400.00 to upgrade my operating system? Last time I checked, the core functions of the OS were to:
1. Manage and Allocate memory
2. Manage and Allocate IO resources / CPU resources
3. Manage files
4. Provide a consistant/document API for the programmer
So, windows does 3/4, and most of them poorly. Is this worth 400.00?
Yes, IBM was the big bad monoply way back when. But we need to remember that the BIG anti trust finding with IBM that relates to the OS wars of today is that it was found to be illegal for IBM to bundle OS-360 with its IBM-360 hardware. The release of the OS from the 360's hardware was what allowed Gene Amdahl and others to split off and form IBM-360-clone companys. It was an anti-trust decision that required the unbundling of the OS.
The big difference here is that rather than one company (Microsoft) bundling its OS with its own hardware, Microsoft has contracts with all the PC vendors that require them to bundle. So it is one step removed from the IBM situation.
The question (that has been asked before by the likes of Judge Jackson) is: what can be done about these very private contracts?
I agree, I don't think that this is really the right solution to the problem. The OS makers should just be required not to subsidize computers and to provide a full refund for anybody that doesn't want their software.
Requiring computers to be sold without an OS is just asking for trouble. Most people out there, even today, and probably worse than in the past, aren't going to want to install one. And that assumes that they even know how. Worse still are the times when the authentication server for Windows is down, and people have to call in.
If this is put into place, I rather think that MS is going to do better, and that Apple will probably sell more computers, just fewer people will use OSX. I could be wrong, but it seems like this would damage OSX far more than Windows.
I just don't see how this is ultimately in the best interests of the anybody.
Apple isn't...
It is not necessarily illegal to have a monopoly. However, it is illegal to exploit the monopolistic position in certain ways, to the detriment of the free market. MS has been found guilty of various transgressions and has paid out billions of dollars in fines and settlements. MS became a monopoly by illegal coercive means and maintains its position through the same illegal coercive means. That is the problem.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Great, when you can find me that version of Alibre 3D design software that runs on Windows, Mac, and Ubuntu, let me know... Heck, when you find a common version of a spreadsheet program that runs on those three platforms let me know! I know this is /. and hating MS is de rigeur, but in some cases having a monopoly platform is what enabled the explosion in IT and the penetration of computers into the corporate and home worlds. I remember the way things were back in the late 70s and early 80s. I remember headaches trying to get a Wang document to translate to an Osborne CP/M system.
Having a common platform, and for some applications a completely common interface, is really a good thing. Think cars, road dimensions, and gas nozzle sizes. Standardizing is the important thing here - your car can pretty much drive on any road, and stop at any gas station because of these standards.
If you want to do the BEST thing for the consumer world, don't push to add lots more choices to the OS platform; that's going to end up with the BlueRay/HD-DVD issue where J6P doesn't know what to buy, so chooses not to participate. Push to get a stable, common API exposed on that platform - whoever supplies it - and go from there.
Push to standardize the meanings of common icons - file save/open/new; copy/cut/paste; help/e-mail/launch web; and other common tasks. So that J6P can sit down in front of your application and intuitively know what to do.
Otherwise you'll always end up with people sticking with what they know. Because the reality most people simply want to do the task at hand with the least amount of effort - INCLUDING effort to learn a new application interface. If they're familiar with the Excel interface, then getting them to change to something else is near-Herculean.
Choice is only useful to those who understand their choices; to the rest, it's needless obfuscation, anxiety, and yet another barrier to entry.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
There was an article in our local paper last week about people throwing away malware infested computers because it cost more to clean them than replace them.
Does that sound like Windows is "just freakin' working"?
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Finally some intelligent opinions in favor of the obvious. The key is that we have stifled innovation due to no competition. Force the unbundling and we'll all have a choice because we can show that other OSes are there and capable of doing what 90% of the people want. With bundling we don't have that at all as most that get a computer with a bundled OS have no idea that they have a choice. This is a FACT, and you can't deny it.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
OS installation is pretty straightforward nowadays. If unbundling were to become a reality the procedure would rapidly become even simpler.
Microsoft having trouble with their authentication servers can't be a reason not to allow fair access to their competitors. They will either get it fixed or lose business.
There is no reason to make people get their OS elsewhere, just offer a choice of (customized) OS installation CD's to be included at full retail price.
Not at all the same. Apple is not having third pary manufacturers/distributors to pre-load OSX. Apple makes and distributes the Apple computers with their OS installed.
"If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" -- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa
> Really, vendors should be forced to ask the consumer which operating system their client
> wants and give prices for them to their customer for every new PC sale. That would
> promote fair market better than "banning bundling".
That _would_ be unbundling. Bundling is "This computer comes with Microsoft Windows factory installed. It is included in the price".
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
They assist primarily with copyright law, but also with trademark law and trade secret law. They also assist with the laws that define corporations and give them rights as if they were people. There is a whole host of ways in which government assists just about any corporation. IMHO, a corporation can not be thought of separate from the government and laws that allow it to exist as a legal entity.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
What would you think if just about every retail TV sold had a Kodak DVD player bundled with it? What if you didn't WANT a Kodak DVD player?
If it took 1-2 hours to plug in and configure a DVD player, and the TV couldn't work without one, I'd expect the TV to be bundled with one.
A computer needs an OS to run and it takes me about an hour (a 'regular' person 2 - 3hrs) to install, update, and configure an OS.
Is it unreasonable for a computer to be bundled with an OS? Of course not. Windows is, by far, the most popular OS out there, it should come with that.
Latewire
I want a computer without Windows!! Where can I buy one...?
Answer: I can't.
Yes, there's some places to get one but they cost the same, or more, as a computer with Windows.
How can this be when a retail copy of Windows costs {$hundreds}?
"Unbundling" doesn't mean you won't be able to buy computers with Windows preinstalled, it removes the "bundle" aspect of the deal. Windows should be an extra and it should cost more than the basic model.
the "non-bundle" PC could even be the exact same machine but missing the plastic card with the license key printed on it. When you switch it on it says "(a) Enter Windows license key", "(b) Format disk".
It doesn't need to inconvenience anybody. It just needs to remove Microsoft's automatic inclusion in the sales loop.
No sig today...
Unbundling would probably mean that the seller would have to list the price of the operating system separately and that there would have to be an option to pick only the computer or only the operating system (for the listed separate price). It would not mean that you could not get the computer preinstalled with the operating system. However, pricing would probably change because the computer store could not list artificially low or high prices for the operating system component (otherwise the consumers would pick only one or the other). The real price of the operating system would become more visible and hopefully also more reasonable. So it would be good also for the Windows using population.
This is how anti-bundling regulations have been used in case of GSM phones and GSM subscriptions here in Finland. Of course you can buy them from the same place at the same time, SIM card preinstalled, but you also have the option to search for the best price for them separately (they must have a separate price plan and you must be able to buy them separately). Bundling was only recently allowed for 3G phones to offset their higher cost.
Of course you wouldn't. Because it's just plain stupid. So why on god's green earth should MS be allowed to create the standard for the computing world? They shouldn't. Someone else (say, ISO, only without the bribery) should be in charge of the standards. And then let people choose on which company best delivers on those standards.
As for you comment about too many choices, give Joe SixPack default options and recommendations. Or hell, let him go into the store and ask what he should get for his computer. If he's not smart enough to know what his computer should do, then why is he customizing a computer? That's like letting me try and customize a car. I don't know enough about it, and I will either do my research, or ask for the opinion of the salesman. The point is, Joe SixPack should be given the opportunity to pick what he wants, but also offered a default option should he not fully understand his choices. It's like default/advanced install options. The default is good for the average user. For those who know what they're doing, let them screw with the advanced options.
But hey. That's just me and my two cents.
Cynical Idealist
Am I the only one who was clueless about what the subject of the story was when he read the title?
Anyways, I think this is a terrible idea.
Instead it should go like this:
But forcing them not to ever include the OS will just piss a lot of users off, even though they are lame windows users they do deserve some empathy I guess...
Would be fun since they are not really MS-specific so if this idea gets executed it will be a no for Dell's ubuntu PCs and more enjoyable it will also screw Apple pretty badly...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
I would argue that laws governing property and such also prop up monopolies. In a country ruled by gangs, you don't have any single government to appeal to, but if the gangs all tacitly agreed not to touch a certain organization's stuff, then that organization could use those rules to create a monopoly.
If a monopoly develops around a resource, I guarantee you that the resource has an army of thugs protecting it. They might be police, or guns beholden to the local autocrat or whatever. And that constitutes a government.
So, in essence I agree with the original poster. Monopoly power requires governmental support to create.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
So, in essence I agree with the original poster. Monopoly power requires governmental support to create.
Only if you use a stupendously asinine definition of 'government'. Like, say, this one:
Let me guess: you're an anarchist ?
Funny, every car manufacturer I know has their own "standards". With the exception of the locations of the steering wheel, gas pedal, brake pedal, and the fact that it has four wheels, just about every other thing is different from one vehicle manufacturer to another. Yet, somehow people still manage to choose the vehicle that is best for them.
Is driving a car intuitive? No, you must first be taught and learn how to do so. After you acquire the basic knowledge, you then have the cognitive tools to be able to adapt.
Is that to say things have to be needlessly complex? No, but then let the *market* decide that for themselves. It's one thing to give people choice, it's totally another to *remove* choice. And that's what Microsoft has done, using any tactic possible to hinder or outright prevent any choice other than Microsoft.
Yes, choice is only useful for those who understand. Now ask yourself the question, how useful is understanding when you have no choice?
Standards are the exact reason why a monopoly is bad. Notice how there was a Unix standard (Posix) long before Windows(the product) ever existed, and companies and groups had few problems writing software that was portable between. What you should be asking for is an API or ABI that is standardized between all platforms (I don't this is quite right though). By your own car analogy if only one company made cars, then there would only be 7 cars, the vista home cruiser, the vista ultimate SUV, the vista home premium van... and they would cost as much as microsoft could possibly charge, just like operating systems are now.
Joe Six pack doesn't care what software he is using, he will learn whatever comes with the computer, MS proved that when they forced users to upgrade to win98, win2k, then WinXP, and now they are proving that they can force people into larger changes like Vista. With more OS competition the user will have he choice to go with something familiar, or at least in a Posix environment (linux mainly) copy the home folder and have an identical desktop except for version specific changes in their preferred desktop environment. (using gnome in gentoo or ubuntu is very similar with an identical configuration)
oh and Open-office has a spreadsheet program that works on all the platforms you listed. So writing portable software is possible, even without an API/ABI standard. For further examples, please see Oracle databases, anything Java, apache, Mysql, and countless other closed and open source applications.
No, it isn't. We have such a system where I live, and it works well. We have one company that owns the grid, but multiple producers. Customers have to use the one grid company, but can choose which producer they want to produce their electricity.
How can you know that the electricity you use came from your producer? You can't, but that is also pretty irrelevant. You don't worry that the money that comes out of the ATM is the actual bills you used to make the deposit, do you? The same applies here.
Your electricity bill is divided into distribution cost and energy production cost. The distribution cost goes to the grid owner and the energy cost goes to your chosen energy producer. This makes it possible for energy producers to compete on price, as well as allows the consumers to choose an energy producer that appeals to conscience by e.g. not using imported electricity from dirty coal power plants, or even only using renewable sources for electricity generation.
I actually use the latter alternative, which guarantees that the same amount I use is produced at one of my supplier's "green" power plants, which in reality means 95% hydro power and the remaining 5% a combination of wind, solar and biomass based generation. And the green option was cheap too, only 0.2 cents per kWh on top of the normal energy cost, a small price for a clean conscience.
Then neither does MS. You have it one of two ways:
1) Windows and MacOS directly compete. They are two different OSes for the same basic market (average home users). The fact that Apple is a one vendor solution isn't relevant, it is still competition in the same market. Well, if that's the case, MS doesn't have a monopoly. Apple has a small but stable (and even growing lately) marketshare. They've been around for decades, so clearly MS is not a monopoly and hasn't forced them out.
2) Windows and MacOS do not directly compete. While they do the same thing, they are different markets. Windows is targeted at arbitrary commodity hardware whereas Apple is available only on a special platform. There is no direct competition. However, that means that Apple is a monopoly. Nobody else competes on the Mac platform (and they work hard to keep it that way) and there isn't another company providing a consumer OS on a premium platform.
You can't have it both ways. You can't have "MS is a monopoly because they have no competition," and "Apple isn't a monopoly because MS competes with them." Either they both are or neither is.
Just because there hasn't been a court case about it doesn't mean that Apple isn't a monopoly. Also if you want to look at anti-competitive practises, they are the kings. They are all about "You will run our shit only on our platform."
Besides, there wouldn't be a pre bundled OS market if people didn't want it.
I would agree with you if this was 10 years ago. In the meantime I learned, though, that the products aren't dictated by what the user wants but by what the industry wants, at least in markets where there is a monopoly involved. I'm fairly sure that a fair amount of people reading here want non-bundled hardware, still Dell and HP will not sell an unbundled PC. If the customer dictated what the market offers (which would be the ideal in a free market situation), there would be the option to have the OS bundled or get the hardware "naked", without anything.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
> correct me if im wrong but the EU is not a sovereign nation (1) , most of its member nations hate the origanization (2) and only are considered part of it because their leaders lied them into it in the first place (3). now they are going to tell the world how to do business? (4)
Correcting you on (2), (3) -- those are too generalized. There are people in each country of EU who hate EU and those who like it. On (4) - EU is not telling the world how to do business. At least not as much as the USA is trying to. The only thing that EU is doing in this case, is telling MS (and indeed not only MS) what they have to do if they want to do business in EU. It is not trying to apply its judgement of MS to Middle East or the US, for example.
- No hydroelectric power. Large hydroelectric plants are not anywhere close to large consumers, and are too large for any individual consumer, making them unfeasible.
- No nuclear plants. Ditto.
- Much lower efficiency termic power. Coal/fuel plants improve in efficiency when very large scale. A large fuel plant gets about 50% efficiency, due to heat recovery methods. Individual generators -- the portable kind -- are closer to 10% efficiency.
- No load balancing for wind power. Wind power, while efficient, requires load balancing in the grid, like dams pumping water upstream, in order to cope with the fluctuations of power production vs consumption.
- No load balancing for solar power. Ditto.
Maybe individual power is really even less feasible than you might realize.If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
Think about being a l'aptop dealer: you get unbundled laptops and windows OS licenses. what do you do?
A - sell the laptops as is and wait for clueless customers to call back in an angry mood, or
B - put a free linux cd together with the laptops ordered without the windows option?
What if the linux cd doesn't work well with the hardware, you say? I say that if Microsoft is not allowed to strongarm hardware makers anymore we will see hardware which is easier to get to work under linux, like friggin old hardware was before linux became serious competition, or like pro hardware is (how come hardware raid on alpha is easier to set up then some wireless cards on an intel?)
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Give the average user a choice, and they'll say, "I don't know, which one plays X game and runs Word & Excel?" They simply don't understand what benefits one brings over the other. And the price cut may not convince them, if they don't think they can run everything they need to run.
Most people don't understand and will go for the option they know about. On that basis, if Linux is to make serious inroads into the desktop arena, they need a marketing push as big as that performed by Microsoft. This is the difference between the two camps now - getting the message to everyday people.
No need to ask God. We've already had this situation, and we developed multi-plataform tools that took most problems of interoperability away.
But I can understand how, nowadays, somebody couldn't even know that multiplataform programming exists.
Rethinking email
All belief systems break down at some point, be they economic, religious, or philosophical. "Capitalism" breaks down at the edges, i.e. when you have too little capital to compete or too much capital that no one else can.
Microsoft has reached a functional monopoly on commodity computers. This is a fact and not subject to argument at this point in time. The problem is what to do to limit it's affect on the free market?
I was uncomfortable with the EU forcing Windows to be broken up, they is determining what MS could do internally and that seemed wrong. However, the unbundling seems like a perfect solution.
Personally, I HATE having to buy windows or jump through hoops to get my money back, and that is the wrong the consumers need corrected.
Just like RAM size or hard disk size or CPU, consumers need to see a line item and associated costs. This helps the OEMs because now they can focus on their business and compete on a level playing field -- not on the whim of Microsoft's vendor agreements for Windows costs.
Any OEM daring to offer Linux or other alternative gets threatened by Microsoft's license discount process. This will take that advantage away. The OEMs won't be held hostage by Microsoft's pricing blackmail.
Consumers' will see the real price of the bug-ridden filth that is Windows and be able to make a real choice.
Microsoft will be able to built Windows they way the want without EU interference and will be free to compete on a level playing ground.
The only loss is the bundled "default" windows win. Microsoft will have to, again, work to get and keep its customers.
No one loses.
Fucking libertarians.
Tell you what you need to do: go to Somalia. Now, set up competition in the gun running business. Or drug running. Or hell, making eye openers for the Wal Mart crowd Let's see how long you last.
While we're doing that, you might want to look up the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist".
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?