Microsoft Ready To Address EU Antitrust Concerns

Re:Dumbest case ever by fustakrakich · 2012-09-08 15:22 · Score: 1

EU is broke.

Apparently not:
"Almunia said he was in favor of extending a temporary authorization for state aid for stricken Franco-Berlgian bank Dexia beyond a September30. deadline."

Seems to be enough to keep stuffing their banks full of money...

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Chrome on Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 15:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

This dull reply written in Chrome on activated Windows 8 Enterprise. Chrome metro is full featured and superior in functionality to IE10 metro.

Re:Chrome on Windows 8 by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-08 18:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Now try doing that on Windows RT (the ARM version).
Re:Chrome on Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 22:07 · Score: 1

Now try doing that on Windows RT (the ARM version).
Or on iPad, which completely dominates the tablet market Windows RT is for. Anyone who thinks RT deserves more antitrust attention for this than Apple must have already concluded that Microsoft will completely outcompete iPad and Android tablets and take over the tablet market.
As Microsoft on RT, Apple do not allow third party rendering and javascript engines on iOS. Both claim it is for security, performance and battery life on a tablet. Some Apple people are now going to point out there are alternative browsers in the app store, including one called Chrome. They are all, including Chrome, just reskinned versions of Safari, with the drawback that they only get to use the older and slower javascript engine built into iOS, not the faster JIT version (Nitro) Safari now has. With the exception of Opera Mini, which is a remote terminal offloading much of the rendering and processing to remote Opera servers (why Opera Mini is allowed on iOS but Opera Mobile banned). And all of this they can do on RT as well.
Re:Chrome on Windows 8 by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-09 08:00 · Score: 2

Actually, there is a difference between iOS and WinRT in that regard. And neither have blanket bans on third-party browsers, it's more subtle than that.
On iOS, the restriction is that your app cannot have an interpreter that is used to run code that is not included with the app or explicitly input by the user. Needless to say, any conventional full-featured browser much be able to download and run JS, so that shoots them down right there and then. Opera Mini gets around it by running JS on the server, hence why it's there.
On Win8, there is a similar restriction, but it is much more narrowly scoped. You're not allowed to download and run scripts that "change how the application interacts with the Windows Runtime, or behave with regard to Store policy". So you can't, say, expose WinRT APIs directly to a script. Basically, the point is to not allow the creation of an app that could sidestep the whole Store review process by running arbitrary code. However, for a more limited scenario, like limited scripting of the app itself, it is permissible. I believe this is sufficient to allow a browser to be implemented. At least, no-one has complained about that yet.
The real problem with Windows RT is not the compliance policy, but the technical restriction that its sandbox imposes on Metro apps. Specifically, it blocks access to all Win32 APIs that permit dynamic runtime code generation - VirtualProtect etc. In other words, no JIT compilers. And all modern browsers use JIT compilers for their JS implementations, and would be quite a bit slower with a pure interpreter. And, of course, IE on Windows RT does have a JIT-based JS implementation, so it'll be faster than any third-party browser there.
The other problem is that Windows RT does not allow the installation of third-party desktop apps; Metro only. So you can't write a third-party desktop browser for it - but it does have desktop IE...
These two things are what Mozilla and Google were complaining about. That they basically cannot fully compete with IE on Windows RT due to sandboxing that applies to them but not to IE.
Re:Chrome on Windows 8 by thetoadwarrior · 2012-09-09 09:11 · Score: 1

There's a difference. Apple isn't a convicted monopolist that has agreed to certain rules. iOS doesn't pretend to be an open OS. Microsoft still tries to covince people Windows for ARM isn't handicapped and therefore just an ordinary windows release so it should abide by the same rules.
Re:Chrome on Windows 8 by exomondo · 2012-09-09 11:00 · Score: 1

Now try doing that on Windows RT (the ARM version).
That's like Firefox on iOS, but it's ok because it - like WindowsRT - doesn't have a monopolistic position.
Re:Chrome on Windows 8 by exomondo · 2012-09-09 11:07 · Score: 1

The other problem is that Windows RT does not allow the installation of third-party desktop apps; Metro only. So you can't write a third-party desktop browser for it - but it does have desktop IE...
These two things are what Mozilla and Google were complaining about. That they basically cannot fully compete with IE on Windows RT due to sandboxing that applies to them but not to IE.
WindowsRT is basically Windows Phone for tablets, it may not be bad (I personally had a WP7 device for a while and IMO it was quite good) but there is no real compelling reason to use it over iOS or Android so I doubt it will be overly successful and I certainly don't think it will hit a position in which it has monopoly share of any market so there is unlikely to be any anti-trust ruling regarding it.
Re:Chrome on Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 11:29 · Score: 0

There's a difference. Apple isn't a convicted monopolist that has agreed to certain rules.
"Monopolist" is based on a specific product in a specific market, it doesn't extend to all the company's products. For example just because they have a monopoly on Windows on x86 systems doesn't mean they have to say open up the xbox to run Firefox.
iOS doesn't pretend to be an open OS.
Neither does Windows RT. In fact it is pretty clearly a closed OS.
Microsoft still tries to covince people Windows for ARM isn't handicapped and therefore just an ordinary windows release so it should abide by the same rules.
No they don't. I'm sure it helps your flamebait comment to insist that they do but the fact is they don't. Try and stick to the facts rather than your own perceptions and false application of anti-trust law.
Re:Chrome on Windows 8 by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-09 11:33 · Score: 1

Technically speaking, Windows RT is Windows 8 for ARM, nothing more, nothing less.
In terms of technical restrictions on third-party apps (sandboxing apps etc), yes, it's closer to Windows Phone. But remember that it still has a classic desktop, it's just that it will only run Microsoft-signed desktop apps. Even so this means that you get command prompt, PowerShell and Office. The latter in particular may prove to be a compelling reason to use it over iOS or Android, especially if you have one of those convertible tablets/netbooks.
Re:Chrome on Windows 8 by exomondo · 2012-09-09 12:08 · Score: 1

Technically speaking, Windows RT is Windows 8 for ARM, nothing more, nothing less.
Actually technically speaking it's a lot less, the very reason most people use Windows is for existing x86 software, none of which runs on WindowsRT and that's not just processor architecture differences that could be overcome (mostly by a recompile it's that the APIs simply don't exist on WindowsRT.

In terms of technical restrictions on third-party apps (sandboxing apps etc), yes, it's closer to Windows Phone. But remember that it still has a classic desktop, it's just that it will only run Microsoft-signed desktop apps.
Is there a problem with that? Yes it's anti-competitive but so are restrictions on iOS, unless it comes to dominate the market such that it becomes really the only choice that's fine, that's how anti-trust and anti-competition law work.

Even so this means that you get command prompt, PowerShell and Office.
I certainly doubt that will swing people from the dominant iPad.
Re:Chrome on Windows 8 by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-09 17:17 · Score: 1

Actually technically speaking it's a lot less, the very reason most people use Windows is for existing x86 software, none of which runs on WindowsRT and that's not just processor architecture differences that could be overcome (mostly by a recompile it's that the APIs simply don't exist on WindowsRT.
Those APIs do exist on Windows RT, that's how its classic desktop, Office etc works. You just don't get access to them in your own apps, unless you find some way to jailbreak it, or somehow procure a Microsoft signing key for your binaries.

Is there a problem with that? Yes it's anti-competitive but so are restrictions on iOS, unless it comes to dominate the market such that it becomes really the only choice that's fine, that's how anti-trust and anti-competition law work.
Not saying it is or isn't, just what's there. If push comes to shove, the courts will be the ones figuring it out.
Re:Chrome on Windows 8 by exomondo · 2012-09-09 17:57 · Score: 1

Those APIs do exist on Windows RT, that's how its classic desktop, Office etc works. You just don't get access to them in your own apps, unless you find some way to jailbreak it, or somehow procure a Microsoft signing key for your binaries.
I doubt it but do you have a link? There's no reason they would need to port MFC and ATL for desktop, Office or IE and I doubt they'd bother to port any more of the win32 libraries than what they absolutely need.
Re:Chrome on Windows 8 by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-09 19:07 · Score: 1

I doubt it but do you have a link? There's no reason they would need to port MFC and ATL for desktop, Office or IE

MFC or ATL are just wrappers over the vanilla Win32 APIs. The latter is what I'm talking about.
I'm not sure what you need a reference for. That Windows RT comes with Office? If so, then the spec sheet for Surface lists it, and it's been widely discussed elsewhere, just Google for it.
It doesn't actually take all that much effort to port the libraries. It's mostly C and C++, remember, and ARM is a 32-bit architecture, same as x86, so you can get pretty far with just a recompile. Not to mention that those libraries have historically had ports to other architectures already - Itanium, most recently. So most of the quirks of relying on platform-specific behavior have already been ironed out way back then.
Re:Chrome on Windows 8 by exomondo · 2012-09-09 19:51 · Score: 1

MFC or ATL are just wrappers over the vanilla Win32 APIs. The latter is what I'm talking about.
And the latter is what i'm asking about. MFC/ATL (among others like VfW, DS, etc...) aren't available on Windows RT/Phone8 which means a huge segment of applications (in fact most of the popular Windows applications) will not be able to be compiled because those APIs simply do not exist, even if all the win32 APIs exist. That's the difference between Windows 8 and RT/Phone8. RT/Phone8 are far more technically similar than either are to Windows 8.

I'm not sure what you need a reference for.
The win32 APIs that are on WindowsRT, just because they have .Net versions of Office and explorer doesn't mean they ported all of win32.

It doesn't actually take all that much effort to port the libraries. It's mostly C and C++, remember, and ARM is a 32-bit architecture, same as x86, so you can get pretty far with just a recompile.
Just like MFC, ATL, etc... unless of course there were win32 APIs missing.
Re:Chrome on Windows 8 by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-09 20:28 · Score: 1

And the latter is what i'm asking about. MFC/ATL (among others like VfW, DS, etc...) aren't available on Windows RT/Phone8 which means a huge segment of applications (in fact most of the popular Windows applications) will not be able to be compiled because those APIs simply do not exist, even if all the win32 APIs exist.
That doesn't make sense. You simply cannot compile MFC/ATL on a platform without Win32 APIs, which is why it isn't there on Windows Phone. You could certainly compile it on ARM. It's just not available to developers outside of MS.
Again, I can't give you definite links one way or another - I don't know any single article that would cover this topic. It's just not something that would have a lot of public docs, since the official dev story is "Metro only on ARM", and that's that. Since the desktop ARM SDK is internal only, of course there's no public docs for that. But there is enough information there to put those pieces together if you have time to chase it.
Note, I'm not claiming that RT has 100% coverage of all Win32 APIs. But it covers a lot of them, because you need a lot even for the most basic desktop apps.
So, no, internally WinRT and WP8 are much further away than WinRT and Win8. The latter two have the same kernel and largely the same userspace, unlike the former which mostly shares the kernel.

The win32 APIs that are on WindowsRT, just because they have .Net versions of Office and explorer doesn't mean they ported all of win32.
There's no such thing as a ".NET version of Office". All Office versions are mostly native code.

Just like MFC, ATL, etc... unless of course there were win32 APIs missing.
Win32 API is a set of libraries, more or less - it sits on top of the NT Native API, which is what the kernel and the core OS provides.
Re:Chrome on Windows 8 by atlasdropperofworlds · 2012-09-09 20:29 · Score: 1

Who cares about WinRT. Let Apple and google fight for domination of ARM space. I'll still take my 1000x more powerful (according to linpack) x86 processors in laptops.
Re:Chrome on Windows 8 by exomondo · 2012-09-10 11:06 · Score: 1

That doesn't make sense. You simply cannot compile MFC/ATL on a platform without Win32 APIs, which is why it isn't there on Windows Phone.
Not on WP7 but on WP8 since it uses WinRT and the NT kernel.

You could certainly compile it on ARM. It's just not available to developers outside of MS.

So, no, internally WinRT and WP8 are much further away than WinRT and Win8. The latter two have the same kernel and largely the same userspace, unlike the former which mostly shares the kernel.
Explain? WinRT and WP8 share a lot more than the kernel, so if that's all you're basing it on then you're way off (filesystem, Bitlocker, SecureBoot, WinRT, SQLite, DirectX, 32-bit only). WindowsRT and WP8 also both lack all the legacy libraries (and even many non-legacy libraries) and all 64bit support that Windows 8 has which is the reason neither supports much existing Windows software at all. WP8 and WindowsRT certainly appear a hell of a lot more similar than either does to Windows 8.

There's no such thing as a ".NET version of Office". All Office versions are mostly native code.
Got a source for that? Some native code obviously exists in there but where it interacts with the OS and all the windowing the assemblies (in Office 15) seem to indicate it's mostly .Net.

Win32 API is a set of libraries, more or less - it sits on top of the NT Native API, which is what the kernel and the core OS provides.
And? If you've re-designed the kernel and most of the userspace for your new formfactors where you're eliminating backwards compatibility and installation size is an issue (you don't want 1/2 of your 32GB flash taken by the OS) it makes sense to eliminate much of the win32 cruft on those platforms.
Re:Chrome on Windows 8 by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-10 11:42 · Score: 1

Explain? WinRT and WP8 share a lot more than the kernel, so if that's all you're basing it on then you're way off (filesystem, Bitlocker, SecureBoot, WinRT, SQLite, DirectX, 32-bit only)
I don't know where you've got that list from, but it's also wrong. For example, Win8 does not ship with SQLite on any architecture (I don't know about WP8). Secure Boot is not really an OS-level thing, it's just signed bootloader verification on hardware level, Linux can use it just the same. BitLocker is a technology trademark, so when WP8 feature list says that it supports BitLocker, all that means is that it supports encrypted data storage; doesn't mean that it's the same exact product (though some code is almost certainly shared). And, of course, XBox also supports a subset of Direct3D - doesn't really make it Windows, though.
Also, WinRT is present in WP8, but it's still not quite the same as full Win8 one. On the other hand, between Win8 and Windows RT, it's the same WinRT libraries on both (as a side note, that's also why it needs some of the "legacy" Win32 libraries - some bits and pieces of WinRT actually sit on top of Win32).

WindowsRT and WP8 also both lack all the legacy libraries (and even many non-legacy libraries)

Depending on your definition of "legacy libraries", this is also false. Is stuff like user32.dll and gdi32.dll "legacy"? Windows RT has them.
Again, there's a simple mental exercise. Consider how many APIs do you need to run explorer.exe without rewriting it from scratch. At the very minimum, you'll need classic Win32 windowing with message queues & dispatch, stock widgets, common controls and Shell APIs. This in turn drags in classic GDI and COM (for Shell). GDI drags in UniScribe. And so on.
Now try the same for Office...

Got a source for that? Some native code obviously exists in there but where it interacts with the OS and all the windowing the assemblies (in Office 15) seem to indicate it's mostly .Net.
How exactly does it seem to indicate that it's mostly .NET?
You don't really need a source to figure out that it's not the case. Just try shoving Office binaries into ILSpy or something similar, and see how many of them are actually managed.
The reasons are also painfully obvious. Office is an old app, and it hasn't ever been rewritten from scratch. So its core has to be native, since it dates way back to the days before .NET and such, and so does a good part of its UI. It does have some managed code in it for some more recent additions, but most of its functionality was already there in Office 2K, and that, of course, was 100% native.

And? If you've re-designed the kernel and most of the userspace for your new formfactors where you're eliminating backwards compatibility and installation size is an issue (you don't want 1/2 of your 32GB flash taken by the OS) it makes sense to eliminate much of the win32 cruft on those platforms.
The point is that you do want to keep backwards compatibility, at least for your own apps like Office or stock desktop. And it doesn't actually take 16Gb to do that - SysWOW64 directory on 32-bit Win8 takes less than 1.5Gb, for example, and that covers the need of the vast majority Win32 apps out there. I'm not saying that every single binary that's there on x86 is going to be on ARM. But compared to WP8, it certainly has many more in common.

Re:Steve Ballmer he has given me assurances... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 15:30 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Maybe.

But Microsoft software is a cancer that attaches itself in an format lockin sense to everything it touches. The way Microsoft formats are written, if you use any Microsoft software, you have to make the rest of your software Microsoft products as well.

When will they address their format lockin, and stop holding our data hostage?

It's a trap by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 15:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

He ALWAYS says that, during the last anti-trust case, they lost, they where required to offer a choice. Microsoft would endlessly make some token change, then do a press release saying basically "EU has defeated us totally, we've capitulated, oh how unfair it all is", then a week later they'd quietly release details of the change they'd made and it was nothing, and didn't address the core point.

They did this 4 or 5 times, each time doing a press release saying they'd totally capitulated, then release the change later only to find they hadn't done anything, then lobby US Senators and Congressmen to twist the law in their favor against with jingoism.

It's a game he plays.

Re:It's a trap by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 15:56 · Score: 0

were. Idiot.
Re:It's a trap by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 17:28 · Score: 0

are. Idiot.
Re:It's a trap by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 19:03 · Score: 0

will be. Idiot.

For the record by symbolset · 2012-09-08 15:49 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm a huge Steve Ballmer fan. I really love the direction he's taking the company. He's taking bold risks and exploring new avenues to give stockholders the returns they deserve. His work with partners - notably HP, Dell, Sony and Nokia are laudable: he's convinced them to operate on negative margins to Microsoft's benefit, even though their stocks are plumbing decadal lows on the stock market even on the eve of a new Windows launch. The man seems to have magical powers to lure others to their doom. You gotta give him that.

I hear he's now heard about this whole "mobile" thing, and is working his legendary genius to start to study whether or not it's important. Once he figures this out we might have some innovation in mobile from Microsoft. In the meantime we'll just have to muddle along with what we can get from second tier innovators like Apple and Google.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.

Re:For the record by Nerdfest · 2012-09-08 16:13 · Score: 1

Impressive. Sad that you have to show the people actually getting paid for this how it's done.
Re:For the record by Anonymous+Cowardus · 2012-09-08 16:24 · Score: 5, Informative

I'm a huge Steve Ballmer fan. I really love the direction he's taking the company. He's taking bold risks and exploring new avenues to give stockholders the returns they deserve. His work with partners - notably HP, Dell, Sony and Nokia are laudable: he's convinced them to operate on negative margins to Microsoft's benefit, even though their stocks are plumbing decadal lows on the stock market even on the eve of a new Windows launch. The man seems to have magical powers to lure others to their doom. You gotta give him that.

He is taking bold risks because he has to. Microsoft missed the mobile boat years ago and they're now trying to catch up by cannibalizing Nokia's last hope for survival.

He has no magical powers, on the contrary. Last time I checked, he was in urgent need of a few Anger Management classes.
Re:For the record by symbolset · 2012-09-08 16:34 · Score: 1

I'll take that as high praise. Thanks.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Re:For the record by symbolset · 2012-09-08 16:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Nokia's destiny is to be a filing cabinet full of patent licenses in Bellevue, Wa managed by 6 paralegals and one part-time lawyer. This fate is sealed. The full cabinet to the left is marked "Sendo" and the empty cabinet to the right is marked "Adobe".

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Re:For the record by ZosX · 2012-09-08 18:32 · Score: 1

That made my day really. Maybe he needs to throw some more chairs.
Developers! developers! developers!

--
zosxavius photography
Re:For the record by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 21:13 · Score: 0

That made my day really. Maybe he needs to throw some more chairs.
Developers! developers! developers!
or vagina.
Re:For the record by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 01:41 · Score: 0

Your sarcasm sensor needs recalibrating.

Think About This by arbiter1 · 2012-09-08 15:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Apple's iOS blocks people from changing default browser off Safari, But MS gets sued and Fined for Even Including IE? How da hell does that work?

Re:Think About This by arbiter1 · 2012-09-08 15:54 · Score: 0

Even in OS X apple includes Safari in it as default? I know a few ppl will try to use market share agreement but that is not the point if MS can get sued for just including their browser Apple should be sued as well for including safari.
Re:Think About This by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 16:03 · Score: 0

Apple is nowhere near a 90% market cap. They might be evil, but there are no grounds for antitrust charges.
Re:Think About This by asa · 2012-09-08 16:09 · Score: 2

It's really quite simple, actually.
You may not agree with the deal that Microsoft made with the EU, but Microsoft and their anti-trust lawyers did agree to it and it is legally binding.
Any questions?
Re:Think About This by asa · 2012-09-08 16:13 · Score: 5, Informative

I know a few ppl will try to use market share agreement
This has little to do with market share now. Microsoft consented to a legally binding agreement with the European Commission. You might not approve of that agreement, but Microsoft and their division of anti-trust lawyers did agree to it. Now it would seem that Microsoft is in violation of that legally binding agreement and the EC is rightly talking with Microsoft about that.
Should companies be able to sign legally binding deals with governments and then simply ignore them?
Re:Think About This by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 16:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Apple *makes* their stuff.
Microsoft is telling a third party what the third party can put on the machines they sell running windows.
Think about the subtle difference.
Re:Think About This by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 17:06 · Score: 0

Just one. Is a deal made with a gun to your head still legally binding?
Re:Think About This by phantomfive · 2012-09-08 17:12 · Score: 5, Funny

Just one. Is a deal made with a gun to your head still legally binding?
If the one holding the gun is the government, then yes.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Think About This by symbolset · 2012-09-08 18:17 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Mo No Po Ly. Look it up.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Re:Think About This by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 18:22 · Score: 0

Do you understand how corporations come to exist? You do realize that they come into existence by registration with the government? They have legal responsibilities to the state. Taking a corporation to court is no more holding a gun to the corporation's head than any other defendant being accused by a prosecutor, on legally gathered and legally demonstrated evidence, of specific violations of statute, law, or contract.
I think that if you actually spent some time considering the issue that you'd have a different view. You're obviously intelligent enough to have the kind of luxury lifestyle that makes hanging out on slashdot a reasonable use of your time. So, take a minute and think critically about this. Then ask yourself this simple question, "is a deal made with a gun to your head still legally binding?"
Re:Think About This by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 18:44 · Score: 0

The commission is investigating whether Microsoft is in violation of the agreement. It's premature to say that they are in violation (maybe they are, maybe they aren't).
Re:Think About This by arbiter1 · 2012-09-08 18:57 · Score: 1

Um look at how much crap companies like dell, hp, etc have loaded on to the machine? not like they don't have a say in the matter/
Re:Think About This by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 19:20 · Score: 0

You're saying it's ok to promote a monopoly just so long as your aren't already a monopoly, only a super giant company close to being a monopoly with massive market share. That can't be a good idea.
Re:Think About This by SilenceBE · 2012-09-08 19:28 · Score: 1

It is kinda funny that some preemptive tries to block the "market share" argument while that is THE point and they do know it. It is a 'discussion' tactic that I have last seen 20 years ago when I was in preschool ! "I know there is a strong argument out their, but because I really really like to win the argument, you are not allow to use that argument. Lalalala. Fingers in the ears*

Microsoft market share is about 90% on the desktop, Apple's market share is no way near those percentages. When you speak about those percentages some actions have a market disruptive effect, which I think everyone with half a brain cell have does have that insight. BTW the same happens with European companies where they abuse their powers or possibilities to disrupt the markets even with fines higher then what Microsoft needed to pay.

But something tells me that you are aware of the difference, but this is the typical anti Apple kneejerk which gets modded up fast here on slashdot even to the point that it is pure irony that you get modded +5 'insightful'. Only on slashdot... .
Re:Think About This by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 19:58 · Score: 0

Mo No Po Ly means one supplier. Linux, BSD, etc exist. Hence no Mo No Po Ly.
What laws should have regulated was Ma Rk Et Do Mi Na Nc E. But they explicitly don't. They don't even define it, because in the US they were originally written to crush the trade union movement.
Re:Think About This by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-08 20:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

If your memory is faulty, the problem wasn't that MS included IE for free with Windows. The problem was they strong-armed OEMs into not installing or using Netscape. Like hinting that their OEM prices would rise if they installed Netscape. As far as I know you can uninstall Safari though some of the libraries Safari uses are core OS X libraries and should not be removed. MS tied IE so deep into Windows that it could not be removed and can only be hidden. That's the difference.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Think About This by Mitreya · 2012-09-08 21:01 · Score: 2

Apple's iOS blocks people from changing default browser off Safari, But MS gets sued and Fined for Even Including IE? How da hell does that work?
When Apple is a monopoly, they may have to be more careful. It may seem like they are everywhere, but they do not control more than 1/2 of any market (about 33% on smartphones, around 8% on desktops)
Plus they don't block anyone from installing another competing browser, which I thought this complaint is about.
Re:Think About This by Yvanhoe · 2012-09-08 21:46 · Score: 1

But iOS doesn't have a 90% marketshare. And also, many legislators have a hard time understanding that smartphones are actually computers with an OS and software...

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Re:Think About This by blagooly · 2012-09-08 21:48 · Score: 1

Chocolate cake day at the homeless shelter.
Re:Think About This by 1u3hr · 2012-09-08 21:52 · Score: 1

Apple's iOS blocks people from changing default browser off Safari, But MS gets sued

Every fucking time this issue is mentioned someone says this. And every fucking time the answer is still "By the legal definition, Microsoft is a monopoly; Apple isn't".
Apple has a few percent of the PC market. And virtually everyone else who sells PCs bundles Microsoft Windows. MS prevents other software makers from getting a foothold into selling to OEMs by anti-competitive actions like this.
Re:Think About This by cyber-vandal · 2012-09-08 22:53 · Score: 1

It's because you're too stupid to use Google.
Re:Think About This by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 23:53 · Score: 0

Just one. Is a deal made with a gun to your head still legally binding?
Ah, the psychopath defense. "They were threatening me with not being able to do whatever the hell I want, that's like a gun to my head, why should I listen?"
I wonder if there's a psych ward for whole corporations.
Re:Think About This by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 01:11 · Score: 0

When it came to making another browser default, no OEM's didn't have a say if they wanted to get favourable prices for Windows.
Re:Think About This by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 01:42 · Score: 0

Legal definitions of terms are not always equal to dictionary definitions.
Re:Think About This by kenorland · 2012-09-09 02:14 · Score: 1

Should companies be able to sign legally binding deals with governments and then simply ignore them?
No, but maybe governments should be able to react to changes in the market more quickly or stop the meddling.
The EU agreement came way too late to make any difference in the browser market, but it is now in effect aiding an even worse monopolist than Microsoft, namely Apple.
Re:Think About This by spire3661 · 2012-09-09 02:21 · Score: 1

One is a convicted abusive monopolist and the other is not. THATS how it works.

--
Good-bye
Re:Think About This by spire3661 · 2012-09-09 02:22 · Score: 1

ALL legal judgments are of the 'gun to your head' kind.

--
Good-bye
Re:Think About This by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-09-09 02:34 · Score: 2

I always had to laugh at their argument that IE was so deeply embedded they cannot remove it.
They built this whole plug-and-play architecture with COM and it's descendants, and made the browser a flagship example of using it, then reversed course and started deliberately burying it deeply in Windows precisely to avoid anti-trust issues.
Fair enough, to possibly get around a regulation that should not be there (nobody's exactly paying for Chrome or most other browsers; these companies supply them for the exact same reasons.) But it's still laughable.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:Think About This by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 03:00 · Score: 0

Laws contain legal definitions and section 2 of the Sherman Act is entirely devoid of them. It's literally a single run-on sentence.
Re:Think About This by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 03:06 · Score: 0

There is no legislative definition of monopoly. Everyone agrees that there should be, but if you read the act there isn't one.
Why is 40% not a monopoly, and 64% not a monopoly, but 90% a monopoly? None of those is 100% and the law contains no threshold. The "law" is entirely politically driven and arbitrary, you whack whoever isn't paying campaign donations.
Re:Think About This by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 04:41 · Score: 0

And also, many legislators have a hard time understanding that smartphones are actually computers with an OS and software...
They also have trouble understanding that diamonds are actually a kind of rock, and DeBeers market share in gravel is very small. ...or maybe the legislators understand it is about market share, as in markets where people are choosing among potential purchases. Try buying a laptop to replace your cellphone and see how well it works.
Re:Think About This by theArtificial · 2012-09-09 06:12 · Score: 1

For the record I'm not a Microsoft shill, I don't own any stock, and I could care less how well they do.

Apple *makes* their stuff.
Foxconn makes most of their stuff which Apple charges a huge markup on. Microsoft makes lots of stuff too, they're a software company after all, perhaps you've heard of Windows, Office, Visual Studio, and more.

Microsoft is telling a third party what the third party can put on the machines they sell running windows.
Remind us how that works with iOS again? You want to run software, you download it through the App Store. Who gets to decide what goes onto the App Store? Apple and $100 developers license. Its not like they've retroactively removed apps, oh wait. How do you change the browser iOS uses? Apple is the one that made the Walled garden approach mainstream. Something in stark contrast to where they began (unless you made a clone). Sounds like you need to think differently.

--
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
Re:Think About This by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 07:33 · Score: 0

what about multiple countries? Do they all hold the gun or do they each get one gun to hold?
Re:Think About This by exomondo · 2012-09-09 11:32 · Score: 1

As far as I know you can uninstall Safari though some of the libraries Safari uses are core OS X libraries and should not be removed.
Nah you can't, it won't let you remove it. Naturally you can force-delete it and all its associated libraries just like you can with IE, but it will break things as those libraries are required by certain OS functionality.
Re:Think About This by exomondo · 2012-09-09 12:15 · Score: 1

It is kinda funny that some preemptive tries to block the "market share" argument while that is THE point and they do know it.
So if market share is the point then what's the specific amount of market share required?
Re:Think About This by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 13:41 · Score: 0

what about tablet market share?
Re:Think About This by KingMotley · 2012-09-09 14:38 · Score: 1

Apple does have a majority marketshare in tablets. And ipod-like devices. And if you lump ipod touches and iphones together as "mobiles", they did have over a 50% marketshare for a few years.
And they sure do block everyone from installing another competing browser. You can not install firefox on a iPhone/iPad/iPod touch, or any other browser that actually does useful stuff like run javascript.
Re:Think About This by KingMotley · 2012-09-09 14:40 · Score: 1

The law contains a threshold, you just haven't bothered to look it up.
Re:Think About This by KingMotley · 2012-09-09 14:42 · Score: 1

But Microsoft only has a monopoly on desktops. They hold less than 1% marketshare of mobiles. On the other hand, Apple does have a majority marketshare of mobiles (when counting ipod touches, iphones, and ipads -- as they are mobile, run apps, and browse the web)
Re:Think About This by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 16:47 · Score: 0

Apple *makes* their stuff.
Microsoft is telling a third party what the third party can put on the machines they sell running windows.
Think about the subtle difference.
if you want to sell windows systems with the certified for windows sticker you need to adhere to microsoft's guidelines, just like if you want to sell and android device with the google device branding. alternatively sell it with no OS or with Linux, it would be cheaper! people on here are always complaining that major OEMs dont ship enough non-windows systems so why not go that route too!
Re:Think About This by 1u3hr · 2012-09-09 18:04 · Score: 1

But Microsoft only has a monopoly on desktops. They hold less than 1% marketshare of mobiles. On the other hand, Apple does have a majority marketshare of mobiles (when counting ipod touches, iphones, and ipads -- as they are mobile, run apps, and browse the web)
MS Windows doesn't run on mobiles (a different OS with a similar name might.)
Apple sells hardware, including the OS.
They're not selling the OS to OEMs and (effectively) preventing other software vendors from entering the market, as Microsoft has been doing for the last 30 years.
If Apple prevented retailers or phone companies from selling other mobile devices, they could be prosecuted for abuse of their monopoly position in that market.
Re:Think About This by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-09 21:14 · Score: 1

Right-click --> Move to trash.
What do you mean "force-delete"?

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Think About This by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 01:12 · Score: 0

MS Windows doesn't run on mobiles (a different OS with a similar name might.)
That is incorrect as I understand it, but I could be wrong. Windows mobile 8 is the same kernel that powers your desktop. Even so, that point doesn't change any relevant facts.

Apple sells hardware, including the OS.
They're not selling the OS to OEMs and (effectively) preventing other software vendors from entering the market, as Microsoft has been doing for the last 30 years.
That is irrelevant. Being able to wield monopoly power makes no difference whether it comes from software, hardware, or multiple different pieces of software. So what you said maybe be a biased villification of the truth, but it has no bearing at all on whether apple has a monopoly in certain segments or whether they abused it.
Re:Think About This by exomondo · 2012-09-10 10:39 · Score: 1

Right-click --> Move to trash.
At which point you get a message box (in Lion and Mountain Lion, didn't try it in anything earlier) telling you it's components are required by the operating system.

What do you mean "force-delete"?
rm -f the files.
Re:Think About This by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-11 00:45 · Score: 1

I don't know what settings you have but I don't get any warnings at all.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Think About This by exomondo · 2012-09-11 10:21 · Score: 1

I don't know what settings you have but I don't get any warnings at all.
It's a standard install and OSX will give you this message if you try to remove safari (or some other default install apps). It's default behavior in OSX.

Yeah, right! by whoever57 · 2012-09-08 15:51 · Score: 3, Informative

"In my personal talks with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer he has given me assurances that they will comply immediately regardless of the conclusion of the anti trust probe," Almunia said at an economic conference in northern Italy, adding that he considered the matter a "very, very serious issue."

Isn't this the same company that somehow "accidentally" dropped the browser selection process for european installations of Windows 7 SP1?

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!

Re:Yeah, right! by flyingfsck · 2012-09-08 16:35 · Score: 2

Yup, that is what the talks are all about. MS is in danger of being fined for some multipes of the Greek national debt for that.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Re:Yeah, right! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 02:13 · Score: 0

You're not hearing the message:

"In my personal talks with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer he has given me assurances that they will comply immediately regardless of the conclusion of the anti trust probe," Almunia said at an economic conference in northern Italy, adding that he considered the matter a "very, very serious issue."
Re:Yeah, right! by SgtChaireBourne · 2012-09-09 20:24 · Score: 1

Isn't this the same company that somehow "accidentally" dropped the browser selection process for european installations of Windows 7 SP1?

Yes and it's also the one that is still bundling MSIE with each copy of Windows, despite the original complaint about bundling. The so-called remedy, the 'Browser Ballot' does nothing about the actual bundling and gives only the choice of MSIE+another browser. And because an increasing amount of the tech media is beholden to M$, the subject is not given the attention it deserves. So between the broken ballot and the continued bundling, it is business as usual for M$.

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Re:Yeah, right! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 22:56 · Score: 0

It's because MSIE is not a program, but a core component of the OS -- they can't not remove it, even if they wanted to, b/c many apps relying on the MSIE component would then fail. To offer a choice of additional browsers after Windows installation is a good move, that eliminates some of the problem. On Windows 8 RP that feature was missing, but only because the "N" version for Europe didn't or doesn't exist yet. On Windows 8 RP, you can still install any browser you want, if it's compatible with Windows 8. On my Windows 8 RP, the first thing I did was install Firefox, and it works. It'll take some time anyway until browsers have been modified for Windows 8 to support the new (Metro) UI features.
Re:Yeah, right! by kaatochacha · 2012-09-10 03:48 · Score: 1

The days of an OS NOT requiring a browser upon installation are long long LONG gone.
Not having a basic browser to work with when first using a machine is a serious hindrance.
At this point, you might as well say you must have the ability to remove disc formatting and management software from the OS.

Dear EU regulator: Secure Boot by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 15:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

Hopefully the EU addresses secure boot on ARM. Locking out all other OSs besides windows on ARM devices is abusing Microsoft's x86 monopoly to attempt to create an ARM monopoly.

Re:Dear EU regulator: Secure Boot by mlts · 2012-09-08 16:12 · Score: 4, Informative

I wish they could add secure boot to the list that requires a mechanism to disable, such as locked bootloaders. This could be done similar to how the Nexus did the fastboot oem unlock, or similar to the mechanism of entering the IMEI, clicking yes to a series of dire warnings, and then getting a code to type in to unlock the bootloader permanently.

Maybe it is pie in the sky, but it would be nice to have the ability to truly use a device one purchased as their own.

Re:Does the EU do anything else than US bashing? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 16:18 · Score: 0

The EU's case was based heavily on the US DOJ's conviction of Microsoft under US Sherman Anti-trust laws. USA! USA! USA!

(It seems like you're either confused or willfully ignorant. This information is not hard to find. It's archived all around the Web and easily searchable. It doesn't take more than about 20 minutes to learn the basics of the several key Microsoft vs various governments cases which created this situation. Is 20 minutes simply too much investment before making an uninformed slashdot comment?)

Re:Dumbest case ever by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 16:20 · Score: 0

The ability to print money is not related to the ability to repay debts.

They think we are all mentally challenged by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 16:29 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Seriously, only having IE on Windows after it's installed is fine, you do need a browser to begin with in order to download another browser. The EU's Antitrust bullcrap that forced Microsoft to even make a different version of their OS which included the other browsers in it is ridiculous and is basically to say that everyone in the European nations are mentally challenged people who can't find another browser and install it themselves to save their lives.
Why isn't Apple getting hit with that, for only providing Safari with their OS uh?

Do Not Trust Ballmer or Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 16:34 · Score: 0

12 years ago Microsoft and Bill Gates had enough cash to buy contracts for the death of all the EU antitrust regulators and the Officials of the EU.

Today it is different; less money.

So, do not trust Ballmer or Microsoft as they are not trustable even this day.

Re:Dear EU regulator: Secure Boot by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 16:35 · Score: 0

Mod parent UP

Theres no good reason for ARM to be crippled in not being able to disable Secure Boot while x86 can.
Not one.

Double standards by Taantric · 2012-09-08 16:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

I can't understand the disconnect between the treatment of Microsoft for this and how Apple gets away with it's 'walled garden'. Could someone please explain why legally one is OK while the other is not.

Re:Double standards by Pentium100 · 2012-09-08 17:08 · Score: 1, Informative

Market share.
In a perfect free market environment (a lot of almost equal choices), no seller would be able to control the market and thus could do whatever they want, the result would just be felt by them (set prices too high - everyone buys from the competitor).
However, the market for desktop OSs is not really "free". Windows dominate it with a huge market share. As such, whatever Microsoft does will affect not just them. Even if Microsoft does a lot of people do not like, Windows will still hold the dominating position - remember when people were using Vista even tough it sucked, just because there were no drivers for their PC for XP? As such, Microsoft can be considered to be having a monopoly and the ability to abuse it. For example - what if Microsoft made Windows no longer work with, say, Dell computers (not some "natural" incompatibility like 64bit vs 32bit, but "if (PC_mfg == "Dell") Crash();")? Dell would suffer a lot, it may even go out of business. What if Microsoft did that in response to Dell selling some computer with Linux installed by default and told Dell to stop selling PCs with Linux or Windows will not longer work on all Dell's PCs? This is called "abusing your position" and there are laws against it.
On the other hand, a small guy can do whatever he wants, because he does not have the power to influence the market such a degree (what if Linux stopped working on all Dell PCs? Nothing much would happen to the bottom line of Dell, and "Stop selling PCs with Windows or Linux won't work on any of your PCs" threat would not result in Dell complying with it).
Re:Double standards by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-08 18:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

Given that browser restrictions only apply to Win8 running on ARM, we're not talking about desktop OSes here, but rather tablets and such. Where there's no established monopoly as yet (but of all companies, Apple would be closest to having it, rather than MS).
Re:Double standards by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 18:35 · Score: 0

The restrictions Microsoft agreed to with the EC are not applicable only to "desktop OSes" as you suggest. The agreement covers volume PC OSes. So, until Microsoft demonstrates that personal computers running Windows and Office are not PCs, they are in violation of specific legal commitments.
Further, your invocation of monopoly is not relevant. Microsoft made an agreement with the EC. They are either in violation of the agreement or they are not. There's no debate here, even from Microsoft, that they do have a legal commitment to the EC.
Re:Double standards by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-08 19:58 · Score: 1

I was not talking about this particular agreement, but rather the general sentiment expressed in the post to which I replied. That post was also the one to invoke claims of monopoly as a rationale.
Re:Double standards by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 21:09 · Score: 0

How people still not know this?
Microsoft was convicted for ABUSING their monopoly and BREAKING THE LAW by forcing competitors out of the market by using illegal methods, not by competing.
That's why.
Re:Double standards by cyber-vandal · 2012-09-08 22:56 · Score: 0

Because you are a total fucking retard.
Re:Double standards by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 00:36 · Score: 0

As noted in other comments, Microsoft has an agreement with the EU, while Apple does not.
Re:Double standards by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 13:55 · Score: 0

a company cannot be a monopoly, fool. yes anti-trust law is pretty simple, but obviously too complicated for you to understand.
Re:Double standards by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 18:57 · Score: 0

How people still not know this?
Microsoft was convicted for ABUSING their monopoly and BREAKING THE LAW by forcing competitors out of the market by using illegal methods, not by competing.
That's why.
Well given that the article - even though it says it's Windows 8 - is obviously referring to Windows RT (API restrictions referenced are present on RT but not 8) which is on the ARM platform and Microsoft has no market share much less a monopoly position to abuse the question is perfectly pertinent. Does Mozilla provide a browser ballot on B2G? Does Google provide a browser ballot on Android or ChromeOS? They don't have a monopoly position but neither does Windows RT, it would be wise for those companies to lead by example, I bet they don't though.
Re:Double standards by atlasdropperofworlds · 2012-09-09 22:05 · Score: 1

In MS's defense, they removed almost all of what made people dislike Vista. Vista was an improvement in terms of end user security. I ended up using vista for a short time and it wasn't bad. They did, however, make an OS that a huge number of people like in 7 by listening to their customers.

Re:Dumbest case ever by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 16:38 · Score: 0

If the debts are denominated in the money you have the ability to print, then you do (technically) have the ability to repay them. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean the debtors will have been repayed in a meaningful way.

put them in the app store (with no fees and no met by Joe_Dragon · 2012-09-08 17:29 · Score: 1

put them in the app store (with no fees aka 100% free to be in there and no forced metro)

Re:Steve Ballmer he has given me assurances... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 17:43 · Score: 0

Close Internet Explorer and go outside for a change, please.

Re:Steve Ballmer he has given me assurances... by symbolset · 2012-09-08 18:14 · Score: 1

Tell us how you really feel.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.

Re:Dumbest case ever by symbolset · 2012-09-08 18:16 · Score: 1

... and it doesn't need to be.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.

ballot DVD by sandoval88419 · 2012-09-08 18:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

I agree with you, MS have always played the same game, they get a slap on the hand, they promise, then they do nothing.

Result today : we can't uninstall IE, selecting another search engine is painful, and we are obliged to buy Windows with every new machine.

As long as MS have their deal with manufacturers to enforce a pre-installed windows nothing will change : Tied sale and MS tax. Which should be punished because MS are not a HW manufacturer.

Either they do their HW and offer a pre-installed windows, either they sell SW by their own means at no-loss price.

I think what'd be fair would be a ballot DVD :
1- the user buys a brand new machine,
2- boots the machine with the ballot DVD
3- picks up Linux
4- ????
5- profit ! :-)

Re:ballot DVD by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 16:34 · Score: 0

As long as MS have their deal with manufacturers to enforce a pre-installed windows nothing will change
Dell have done it on and off for years, they just didnt sell well. Asus has done it as well, as has HP and Acer. There's also Apple and a myriad of other manufacturers who sell systems with no Operating System or with Linux installed. The big players focus on Windows because that's what people buy, for the smaller market who don't want Windows there is certainly a lot of variety and there is also the Windows license refund.
Re:ballot DVD by kaatochacha · 2012-09-10 02:50 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but selecting another browser on systems is painfully easy. My father, 72 years old, retired, and knowing pretty much nothing about computers is able to do this on both a Mac and a Windows PC.

Re:Dear EU regulator: Secure Boot by arbiter1 · 2012-09-08 18:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

So wouldn't the ipad be effected under this since apple does the same thing on their ARM device?

Ballot Screens. by VortexCortex · 2012-09-08 19:16 · Score: 2

Hey! Linux and BSD are Free Operating Systems. If MS is using their dominant OEM installations to leverage IE, then they're doing the same for their OS... So, why not have a ballot when you turn an the PC for the first time that allows you to install a different OS?

I'll even go one further, why not have MS show a ballot screen that allows you to choose MS Office (trial) or the full versions of Open Office or Libre Office. Instead of PBRUSH.EXE Microsoft should be giving us a ballot box for Gimp, Inkscape, and Photoshop (w/ payment, of course).

Hey, I know, maybe we can create a repository for all the different software there is and LET THE FUCKING CUSTOMER CHOOSE? Ah, that would be insane! Why, customers couldn't possibly choose what OS they want installed on their systems -- They barely know how to use the damn devices in the first place. I know! Why doesn't someone just take advantage of this fact and leverage it to limit the available software and take a cut of all proceeds via pre-insatalled OS and "App Store" -- OOH! We could even prevent the user booting other OSs in the name of security! You know! Because if something can write to the boot sector, they'd never think of writing to ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING ELSE to infect the system. Why, it'll be the MOST SECURE VERSION of Windows ever released!

::sigh:: If only MS were smart enough to do so.

Re:Ballot Screens. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 19:34 · Score: 0

I'm glad you took the time to answer your own questions. Not only are most users utterly incompetent, they also don't care.
Sorry, everyone who wants to make the effort to go open source can and does. The average person has absolutely no interest in Libre Office on BSD if MS Office on Windows comes pre-installed for a negligible fee. They don't want to learn something new, they don't want to learn why they should, and they sure as hell don't want to have to make an informed choice about what ecosystem they support.
You're reading Slashdot, welcome to the 1%. The rest of the universe is happy pushing their button and seeing a familiar splash screen day in and day out.
Re:Ballot Screens. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 21:51 · Score: 0

This is partly a matter of information and "getting the word out" so to speak. The more and more people hear that there is a Free choice the better. For the most part though, yes, the fact that there are alternatives is being drowned out in 'keep up with the Tech-Johnsons'-style journalism coverage of 'oooh S-H-I-N-Y'.
In this case, its well worth the 1% to keep educating wherever possible through whatever (hopefully Free Culture) means there may be. For one, encouraging people to care about human rights by clicking the 'help censored users connect to the Internet' button in the Tor Browser Bundle is such a possible awareness-raising activity and I would heartily recommend you tell everyone you know to do so.

And the sign on the door... by zooblethorpe · 2012-09-08 19:22 · Score: 2

Nokia's destiny is to be a filing cabinet full of patent licenses in Bellevue, Wa managed by 6 paralegals and one part-time lawyer. This fate is sealed. The full cabinet to the left is marked "Sendo" and the empty cabinet to the right is marked "Adobe".

And the sign on the door says, "Beware of Leopard".

:-P

Ballmer, Vogon High Commander in exile? Quick, someone get him to recite poetry!

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."

Re:And the sign on the door... by maxwell+demon · 2012-09-08 23:23 · Score: 1

Ballmer, Vogon High Commander in exile? Quick, someone get him to recite poetry!
How did you think he gets other companies to bend in his way?

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:And the sign on the door... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 02:38 · Score: 0

For business partners?
I thought it involved a barrel and some form of lubricant, if you were lucky.

The 'remedy' does nothing by SgtChaireBourne · 2012-09-08 19:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

The so-called remedy, the 'Browser Ballot', does absolutely nothing about the original problem. The original complaint is that M$ is abusing its monopoly and bundling MSIE. So the 'Browser Ballot' even when it works does absolutely nothing about the presence of MSIE. Essentially it gives the users a choice of MSIE + another browser, but MSIE there like it or not and no choice. The press has completely dropped this issue. No surprise since so many are beholden to M$ in some way or another.

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.

Harsh punishments! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 20:00 · Score: 0

I didn't know that in EU the legal punishment for violating antitrust law is execution of the CEO and the board of directors! That seems a bit harsh but...

What? The punishment isn't execution? Then the gun-to-your-head doesn't really hold true, does it?

Ok, what's the punishment then? The legal entity, which doesn't have any natural rights but was instead completely created by the governments, gets sanctions?

Re:Dear EU regulator: Secure Boot by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 20:06 · Score: 0

How does it abuse the x86 monopoly, given that Windows on ARM doesn't run any existing x86 apps?

Re:put them in the app store (with no fees and no by SuricouRaven · 2012-09-08 20:10 · Score: 1

And they'd perform like they were running on a Pentium I. The App Store rules forbid any application that compiles it's own executable code at runtime, as a security precaution. For most applications that wouldn't matter - it's a rather esoteric ability, used rarely. But for browsers it is essential for running JIT compilation of scripts. Without the JIT compilation, web-apps would be painfully slow to use. IE gets to use the technology, but MS is denying the same ability to any others browsers running on WinRT, or using the app store on Windows 8 x86.

Will Microsoft actually solve the problem? by jonwil · 2012-09-08 20:18 · Score: 1

From what I can tell (based on what Mozilla and others have said), the root issue is basically that apps written for Metro dont get access to the Windows APIs they need and that developers on ARM get access to even less.

Will Microsoft actually FIX the problem and allow Metro (and ARM) apps to access the APIs necessary to do JIT compilation of Javascript, spawn plugins in separate processes and the other things a modern web browser (like Firefox, Chrome or Internet Explorer) needs to do?
Or will they claim that doing so would open up the Windows Store to "undesirable" applications (malware etc)?

Microsoft can do whatever, you don't have tobuy it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 20:38 · Score: 0

There's no such thing as a monopoly, people just have to unite together and not buy their crap. Microsoft should be allowed to allow only certain software to be installed on their OS, after all, Apple does this and people don't seem to be upset by it. Plus originally microsoft didn't ban any third party software, it was all there in the open. By this logic of ignorance, why are we allowed to use the front-end of the OS? Let's just get the kernel because the rest of the OS violates our rights to customize it as we please. There's no such thing as an operating system besides Windows, it's windows and only windows. Linux and OSX are just legendary, they don't really exist and neither do the dozens of other operating systems. I could be an even bigger douche but lord Europa deserves it.

Re:Steve Ballmer he has given me assurances... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 21:05 · Score: 0, Insightful

Poor old Ballmer can't catch a break.

Even in his own Slashdot topic, he gets modded flamebait.

"Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source," Ballmer explained"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/

Re:Does the EU do anything else than US bashing? by moronoxyd · 2012-09-08 21:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Does the EU have any other purpose than harassing US companies? This is 10+ year old news.

Microsoft has a legally binding contract with the EU.
It seems like Microsoft broke that contract.
The EU investigates.
Where exactly is the harassment?

On a side note: The EU also investigates European companies in the same way if they break anti-trust laws. One example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8140024.stm

Tin foil. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 21:50 · Score: 0

Monopoly doesn't mean only one supplier. You saying "it means one supplier" is like saying holography is handwriting. If you look at the translation of holography, it DOES mean "hand writing". However, if you were to go around correcting all the dictionaries to this definition, you'd be locked up as a nutcase.

Monopoly power is what is regulated and having a monopoly doesn't mean only one supplier. You might as well get used to it, your nutcase definition is irrelevant because you're a barking mad nutter.

So how come many many companies were done by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-08 21:56 · Score: 0

So how come many many companies were done for a nonexistent thing like monopoly?

Oh, you mean YOU "think" that there is no such thing.

I bet you think that there's no such thing as a 3D holograph, since holograph means "hand writing", right?

You're a twat. Shut the fuck up and let grown ups speak.

Re:Dear EU regulator: Secure Boot by 1u3hr · 2012-09-08 23:37 · Score: 1

So wouldn't the ipad be effected

No, because Apple doesn't have an effective monopoly of tablet PCs.

Forget IE: Secure Boot far more important by GeneralSunTzu · 2012-09-09 00:03 · Score: 1

Please mod up parent , even if AC.
Secure Boot should be monitored by the Commission competition investigators, and not just on ARMs, but on any CPU.
It is far more nefarious and dangerous than crappy little IE, where M$ has always had an unbelievable cheek: they claimed that the browser was an integral part of the operating system... (Sure, and I have my trackpad magicglued to my right hand, so I can only accept work which requires trackpad usage or else I can only eat lasagne for trackpads...).
Agenda for the Commission's DG COMPET on SecureBoot:
1. act now to discourage SecureBoot via all available international fora, given that your investigation procedures are far too slow;
2. make it clear that SecureBoot will NOT have any impact on malware/security, only on M$ role in HW control;
3. tell your legal counsels, also not particularly known for their astounding speed, to prepare an advance legal advice on the breach of the competition rules which is bound to the current specs of SecureBoot;
4. start tackling Apple for IOS and iTunes: under cover of security they are just playing exactly as M$ [not for nothing the French competition authorities investigated iTunes].

--
The Force actually is with me.

Re:Dear EU regulator: Secure Boot by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 00:25 · Score: 1

Neither does Microsoft.

Re:Does the EU do anything else than US bashing? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 00:38 · Score: 0

most anti-trust cases in europe are against domestic companies, because they're in position to abuse it, duh. and in most cases it's about fleecing european governments.

Re:Does the EU do anything else than US bashing? by jareth-0205 · 2012-09-09 00:50 · Score: 1

Does the EU have any other purpose than harassing US companies?

Microsoft failed to do what they agreed to do to resolve the last case. I suppose in your world if someone is convicted of a crime, and they escape from prison, they should be let go because they've already been through a court once?

Also, just because *you* are ignorant as to what else the EU does, doesn't mean they don't also pursue other companies.

No, they really shouldn't by abigsmurf · 2012-09-09 02:11 · Score: 1

You are buying a windows tablet why should they be made to let you put Android or whatever on it?

Apple are not made to allow Android, neither are Nintendo with their consoles. Sony will probably never include other operating systems on their games consoles again (and they will be used as a prime example for generations to come about the minimal benefits and massive risks of opening up a closed platform).

the time to intervene is now by kenorland · 2012-09-09 02:19 · Score: 1

Apple clearly engages in anti-competitive and monopolistic practices at least as bad as anything Microsoft has ever done. If we only intervene once a company has succeeded in offing its competition, we are just going to wander from one monopoly to the next. Interventions like the consent decrees are far too slow to remedy the situation.

The real solution is to set some basic standards for openness and interoperability: devices should be required to allow installation of different operating systems, devices should allow third party app stores, app stores should be vendor neutral and free of restrictions other than those demonstrably based on security (i.e., iTunes should be required to carry Google Play Movies), etc. Ditto for Kindle Fire.

Re:the time to intervene is now by 1u3hr · 2012-09-09 06:15 · Score: 1

Apple clearly engages in anti-competitive and monopolistic practices at least as bad as anything Microsoft has ever done.

"Clearly?
Funny how none of the government regulators can see this then.
Yeah, they do a lot of not nice stuff, but they're not a monopoly, so different rules apply.
Re:the time to intervene is now by arbiter1 · 2012-09-09 13:42 · Score: 1

So how does it work MS is doing same thing Apple is doing yet for apple its alright and MS its a gov investigation? seems kinda fishy to me that Apple is allowed to do all this crap yet MS even comes remotely close and they are lookin at possible fines. How does MS have a monopoly in a market they don't even have 1 device released in tablet market?
Re:the time to intervene is now by kenorland · 2012-09-09 20:53 · Score: 1

Are you daft or something? My whole point was that government regulators are not intervening because Apple, despite massively misbehaving, hasn't succeeded yet in killing off its competition. That's why I was saying that the time to intervene is now, as opposed to later, as we did in the Microsoft case. Get it?
Re:the time to intervene is now by 1u3hr · 2012-09-09 21:55 · Score: 1

because Apple, despite massively misbehaving, hasn't succeeded yet in killing off its competition.

A company can dominate an industry and "kill off" competition quite legally. It's only when they cross the line and abuse their position that "intervention" is warranted.
Re:the time to intervene is now by wolverine2k · 2012-09-10 00:09 · Score: 1

Wow. I really admire your stubbornness and adherence to the fruit cult! Long live SJ! Now get your pants down and bow to your god...
Re:the time to intervene is now by kenorland · 2012-09-11 15:30 · Score: 1

How is criticizing Apple an "adherence to the fruit cult"? Are you on drugs or something?
Re:the time to intervene is now by kenorland · 2012-09-11 15:37 · Score: 1

A company can dominate an industry and "kill off" competition quite legally.
Have I said anything to contradict that?

It's only when they cross the line and abuse their position that "intervention" is warranted.
No, intervention is "warranted" much earlier, if the goal is to preserve a free market, competitiveness, and innovation. That was my point: the Microsoft example in the EU shows that legal interventions currently come too late, and hence we should change the laws to allow interventions earlier.
Re:the time to intervene is now by 1u3hr · 2012-09-11 20:46 · Score: 1

hence we should change the laws to allow interventions earlier.
So, you're talking about changing the law. I was talking about what the law actually is now.
Re:the time to intervene is now by kenorland · 2012-09-12 10:40 · Score: 1

Well, yes, as you would realize if you actually read my original posting.
Re:the time to intervene is now by wolverine2k · 2012-09-13 22:47 · Score: 1

Drugs.. I would love to. But I was just a bit sleepy when I replied. Now that I read your reply, I realize that both of us are on the same side. Sorry if that is the word you are looking for...

Now if... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 02:28 · Score: 0

Now id we can only get the U.S. Government to act on the Win8 antitrust blockages. I am sure that Microsoft will be able to pay off the politicians however. I is all about buying the vote today.

Re:put them in the app store (with no fees and no by kenorland · 2012-09-09 02:33 · Score: 1

That doesn't make much sense. Are you saying MS is denying the JIT compilation of CLR code to native code? That wouldn't be needed for security reasons. Or are you saying the MS is denying people the ability to write their own JavaScript JIT compiler? That wouldn't be much of a restriction, since you can compile JS to CLR/DLR and then let the system JIT compiler compile that to native code.

So, can you elaborate what it is you think you can't do?

Too little too late. Govt = Bollywood cops. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2012-09-09 03:44 · Score: 2

OK, Microsoft strong armed the PC makers into avoid installing Netscape and competing office suits. They had a pricing policy that has deep discounts for not installing competing products. Clear abuse of monopoly powers and the PC makers succumbed to it. Fine. It is all old story now.

The PC makers are paying for their sins now. In fact paying for it for some time now. Dozens of them have gone under. The few who are left, Dell, HP+compaq, toshiba, are struggling. They all agreed to have identical offerings and chose to compete on price. Not a single one of them thought, "OK I will bite the extra cost of individual licensing, but install FiredFox+Noscript and pitch it as more secure PC and go for higher margins. In fact I will throw in OpenOffice and GIMP and virtualDub and Handbrake and pitch it as a fully functional PC". No, they did not. They all fell in line with Microsoft. Reduced to competing purely on price, with their margins cut severely, without any brand differentiation or brand identity the PC makers became as indistinguishable as costermongers, blood orange purveyors and the fish and chips vendors on the Piccadilly circus. Serves them right. Now Microsoft wants to get into hardware business and finish them all off.

But it does not matter any more. PCs are not the most common devices that use the internet. With smartphones, tablets and e-books all having internet capabilities, even if IE regains the monopoly marketshare in PCs it would not matter anymore. With google docs and other on line free tools for document creation available, most households will never ever buy MsOffice suites. Many small companies and some medium companies are switching to alternatives to Microsoft Office. So, make no mistake, Microsoft will continue to make lots of money for a long time to come. But they do not have the power to stifle the whole industry for their personal gain. Idiotic product managers in Microsoft wont be able to make venture capital funding disappear for promising new technologies by press release and vaporware any more.

And as usual the wheels of government have turned slowly and coming in to rescue us after we have fought back the menace all on our own. Where were they when Microsoft subverted document standards? Where were they when Microsoft deceptively named its shit OOXML? Where were they when we were down and the outlook looked gloomy? These are not the U S Cavalry riding into rescue at the crucial moment. They are the Bollywood cops who come into arrest the villain after the hero has single handedly defeated the villain and his thousand thugs with machine guns with bare hands, just as the credits start rolling.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact

Re:Too little too late. Govt = Bollywood cops. by atlasdropperofworlds · 2012-09-09 22:56 · Score: 1

> PCs are not the most common devices that use the internet.
So far, they certainly are, by a big margin.
Re:Too little too late. Govt = Bollywood cops. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2012-09-10 05:20 · Score: 1

The number of tablets and smartphones exceeded 300 million in USA alone last year[1]. Add to it the e-book readers and game consoles. The total number of PC installations is considered to be 600 million world wide. Including business/work machines, where the browser ballet is decided by corporate policies. Right now more non-PCs are accessing the internet than PCs. [1] http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/12/technology/cellphones_outnumber_americans/index.htm

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Re:Too little too late. Govt = Bollywood cops. by atlasdropperofworlds · 2012-09-10 13:11 · Score: 1

The article you linked is the number for all cellphone plans in the US. This include older, more basic cellphones as well. It make sense, because I have a cellphone. I also have a desktop. Everyone I know has both a cellphone and a desktop. None of replaced one with the other, and certainly those who use their desktops to do anything more than check email certainly appreciate a large screen and the 1000x more processing power.
You're also incorrect about the number of PCs out there. It's actually over a billion. Believe it or not, it's still growing:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-06/tech/30481049_1_android-apps-ios

Government intervention goes both ways by orospakr · 2012-09-09 05:18 · Score: 1

How would you guys feel if the EU suddenly demanded that Debian include or not include certain packages in the main repository, regardless of what Debian's contributors and policies (say, the DFSG) said?

That's the thing about freedom. If you are to have it, then so must the other guy.

Re:Government intervention goes both ways by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 06:05 · Score: 2, Informative

As a 'Debian derivative' user:
If Debian or *any company* had 90% of the Desktop PC OS market (or even 50%), I'd consider it might be a reasonable matter for the EU competition authorities to be concerned in.
Did you get that the whole point of competition law was regulating the misuse of power by *dominant* companies, who have the power to force an entire market in a particular direction? And that Debian is not such a company, so it can do what it likes in this respect, unless and until it becomes such a company?

Re:Steve Ballmer he has given me assurances... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 05:46 · Score: 0

Why is there not a "+0.5 Midly Funny Due to Excess Indignant Obscenity" mod?

before we discuss chickens and eggs in this by RobertLTux · 2012-09-09 07:26 · Score: 1

what could work is

1 the ballot program should have a picklist of different browsers and then in similar fashion to Ninite grab the current version(s) and install them
http://ninite.com/.net-7zip-air-chrome-firefox-flash-flashie-foxit-java-opera-pdfcreator-reader-safari-shockwave-silverlight/
will install all of the "Top 4" other browsers and a few other things.

2 just go ahead and install all five of the top browsers and be done with it

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge

What? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 07:47 · Score: 0

I don't understand this. So what if THEY don't offer a choice, It's not their software to promote and endorse. Windows is sold as a microsoft product, Which includes IE. People can make browser choices for themselves (I use firefox personally) so why bother?

Re:Dumbest case ever by Genda · 2012-09-09 07:54 · Score: 1

Exactly, when the countries had their own currencies, they could devalue accordingly and their economies could normalize in a meaningful way. With everyone using the same currency managing debt between sovereign nations becomes extremely complicated and leads to unfortunately draconian economic measures in the debtor nations.

Re:Dear EU regulator: Secure Boot by exomondo · 2012-09-09 11:50 · Score: 1

So wouldn't the ipad be effected

No, because Apple doesn't have an effective monopoly of tablet PCs.

Well in that case Microsoft won't be affected either.

Re:Forget IE: Secure Boot far more important by exomondo · 2012-09-09 11:52 · Score: 1

they claimed that the browser was an integral part of the operating system...

You haven't tried removing Safari on OSX have you, it claims the same thing :P

Re:Dear EU regulator: Secure Boot by KingMotley · 2012-09-09 14:45 · Score: 1

No, because Apple doesn't have an effective monopoly of tablet PCs.

Really? 64% marketshare isn't an effective monopoly?

Re:Dear EU regulator: Secure Boot by 1u3hr · 2012-09-09 18:08 · Score: 1

IANAL, and neither are you, I venture to say. I could look up the percentage, but why bother.

--30--

Re:Does the EU do anything else than US bashing? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-09 23:48 · Score: 0

Does the EU have any other purpose than harassing US companies?

Does the US have any other purpose than producing mouth breathing illiterates who think the world was made by a big guy with a white beard 6000 years ago?

How stupid is the EU? by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2012-09-10 02:42 · Score: 1

This has been a multi-decade bullshit legal battle between the EU and Microsoft at a time when PC's are becoming irrelevant and Apple is emerging as something worse the Microsoft ever was.

At a time when the EU is still up in arms about Microsoft embedding a stupid browser and media player into Windows (because the EU assumes all Europeans a retarded and cant figure out how to use a computer properly), meanwhile Apple is securing a market of walled gardens where you can only buy and use content on some Apple provided platform.

Is the EU so delusional and retarded that they can't see the forest through the trees? They are pursuing legal actions against a "perceived" monopoly while a REAL monopoly is being established right under their noses.

The EU is supposed to act when European interests are at threat. Apple is creating a 100% American controlled mobile device and content distribution platform and the EU is doing nothing about it.

I think Microsoft's "monopoly" is moot now. What Microsoft did was awaken a giant in Apple. Apple could not compete on the desktop, so Apple created a mobile marketplace whose entire purpose is to "destroy the competition". Yet the EU still seems insistent and trying to pursue legal actions against an increasingly irrelevant platform.

So, lets tally the claims against Microsoft compared to what Apple does today:

Microsoft includes IE with every copy of Windows. Apple actually prevented 3rd party browsers on iOS until recently and ship every iDevice and Mac with Safari as default browser.

Microsoft includes Media Player with every copy of Windows. Apple provides iTunes as the ONLY way to purchase content and generally the only way to get content from a Mac onto iDevices. Apple has also done away with "computer" necessities to get content onto iDevices thus preventing ANY 3rd party from ever offering a content service for an iDevice. Windows Media Player was set up to allow 3rd party music store services and support for 3rd party devices, it NEVER directly tied a user to a Microsoft content platform.

EU forced Microsoft to break Windows into multiple installation versions so that consumers can pick and choose what level of features they wanted to install. Apple has always shipped one consumer version of OS X and iOS updates involve zero configuration option until after it is installed.

In addition to what Microsoft has done historically:

Apple is securing an Apple only content platform. Microsoft has ALWAYS embraced 3rd party content distribution on Windows.

Apple sets prices for hardware and limits hardware selection. Microsoft generally only provided software allowing many companies to offer a range of products with a variety of feature and price points.

Apple controls and limits competition DIRECTLY on iOS. Microsoft NEVER blocked applications running on Windows even when competitive services were offered like Firefox and Chrome.

Lastly, I would argue that Microsoft's "monopoly" inspired a generation of innovation and competition. Firefox and Chrome had emerged as excellent alternatives to IE for instance. Both software and hardware companies flourished under Microsoft's reign of monopoly by both embracing Microsoft's platform AND competing against it with their own innovative products. Google would still be a search engine if not for trying to out Microsoft Microsoft. If Linux could be selected and installed as easily as Windows then I think Linux would have actually died as an alternative for its lack of ease of use historically.

Apple's reign of monopoly is destroying the technology marketplace. Companies are going bankrupt because they cannot find a competitive edge against Apple. Software/Content companies either have to adapt to Apple's platform, or die. Apple is shutting out direct competition and maneuvering into a position to aggressively destroy competitive services and devices. Apple is crippling innovation through aggressive patent squatting and litigation against IP infringements.

So EU, is Microsoft the poster-child for anti-competitive practices? Or are you going to wake up and realize Apple is doing anti-competitive better and with greater impact then anything Microsoft has ever done.

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.

Re:Dear EU regulator: Secure Boot by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 11:30 · Score: 0

Locking out all other OSs besides windows on ARM devices is abusing Microsoft's x86 monopoly to attempt to create an ARM monopoly.

How is this utter shit modded +5? That statement doesn't even make any sense, next they'll be telling us Microsoft is abusing its x86 monopoly by preventing Linux from running on the XBox.

Re:put them in the app store (with no fees and no by SuricouRaven · 2012-09-10 18:08 · Score: 1

As I understand it - which is not very well - the former. It's not targetting javascript specifically, but rather is part of the security model in general. Something like a stricter version of DEP: The apps have code sections and data sections, the code sections are all tagged read-only, and the OS will refuse to execute anything not in a code section.

Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft Ready To Address EU Antitrust Concerns

176 comments