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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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?
> 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