Could you elaborate "crush alternative vendors by unfair means"?
"although your right to choose is still there, but there is limited choices." -- In trade, nobody promises you choices. You make the best of the available choices or you create alternative choices. In doing so, you sustain profits and losses; that is trade.
"No matter how good your alternative software is, still people are unlikely to use it because all their data is already in Microsoft proprietary format" -- So, the people and not Microsoft have to find a way to get out of this fix. This was people's choice and not Microsoft's.
So, you do agree the market has locked in. And this is by choice of the market not because of MS (yes, MS may have twisted the arm in the deal, but the market still had a choice). Hence, it is the markets fault not MSs.
As for a computer retailer selling PCs with Windows, the reasons are obvious.
- users prefer Windows
- retailers prefer Windows due to maintenance cost (atleast on the outset)
- law requires a retailer to sell the machine with some O/S
Now if either of these changed, the retailers can sell PCs without Windows. But the choice in either 1 or 2 lies with the consumer or the retailer and not with MS. In case 3, the consumer has a choice to custom build his/her PC when the retailer provides no choice about the bundled O/S. As far as I have seen, the consumer is being lazy and wants to play it safe, hence, makes a safe choice. But when the choice bites him/her, they shove the responsibility onto MS.
Also, I don't think this case is about bundling of software with the PC or bundling of the browser with the OS. It is more about competitors using the government to bite into the market share of the leader.
Well, compatibility is a consumer issue its not a vendor issue because it is based on consumer's choice and not on vendors.
Why can't EU use something else? Who is forcing EU to subscribe to Microsoft projects? Quite a few governments (some in South America, some in Asia) have switched to Linux. So, why can't EU do so?
As for forcing the citizens to use something else, I think EU or any government should not force a particular software on its citizen. Similarly, they should not rob corporations of their IP rights.
What does it mean for EU to enable other people to enter the marketplace? Stiffle progress each time a competitor gets left behind? Rob the IP right of the leader just because he is good? What you are suggesting is something that is illustratively described by Ayn Rand in her "Atlas Shrugged" novel, and it does not suggest a good state of affairs.
EU or any other government should provide a fair framework with equal rights for each competitor and then monitor that the framework is fair. As for the consumers choice, the government should stay out.
If consumers wanted Linux based PC, then there will be some vendor who will cater it -- supply and demand. The issue is that consumers don't make the Linux choice for various reasons.
So, who is responsible for supporting a product in a given environment? Is it the product vendor or the environment vendor? It is clearly the product vendor.
May be the product vendor can function better if the environment vendor cooperated. Since there is no legally binding agreement between the vendors, I don't see a reason for the cooperation (except for the general good).
I stand corrected about attributing the innovation of SMB to MS.
As for the changes that made it incompatible to CIFS, why doesn't the commission buy the technology from MS? Have they even tried it? Cos' I'm sure MS would have spent time and resource on developing the technology (changes) and would like to benefit from it as its competitors. Instead the commission is forcing MS to release the changes and blatantly stealing propreitary information. (It is surprising that the western world harps about IP infringement in East Asia but condones the same in such cases -- this is for another day:-) )
I think this case is not about consumer rights or public good. It is more of a showcase to ascertain the commissions stand in Europe via bullying and, unfortunately, MS is the scape goat.
A more interesting and important question is "will the commission/governments not do the same to any other commercial and/or open source software organization?" I think this is certainly a possibility. Isn't this what happened in the Apple vs France case -- infringe rights in the name of interoperability? Now, what would happen if the creative and innovative companies like MS and Apple shutdown? Who would be at loss? Would it be the consumers or the companies?
Just because the creator benefit from the creation and the consumer, it would be naive to think that the consumer is the king. Without the creators, the king would be living an undeveloped wasteland.
In short, as the consumer has already committed to the choice, the provider is leveraging the committment. So, why doesn't the consumer make a different choice? Cos' I really doubt if the provider can directly stop the consumer from making a different choice. As for the indirect influence, the consumer handed over the whip to the provider, hence, he/she has to bear the consequence.
Continuing on the cheese example, the situation is that the consumer knew it was crappy cheese but found it useful (this may not match with the analogy), hence, they became comfortable in using the crappy cheese. Now, when the TV maker decided to change the flavor of the cheese, the baker who was buying TV from TV maker is complaining about the cheese! Well, the purpose of buying a TV was not to buy condiments to run a bakery. So, I think the complaint is groundless.
A more primitive example is that Harry sells Pete all of the land that surrounds Harry's house, i.e. there is not path to Harry's house without going through the Pete's land. Then Harry whines that Pete is charging Harry to move through Pete's lands to get to Harry's house. Now, if Harry and Pete had agreed that Harry will be able to use Pete's lands to reach Harry's house when they transacted, then it is a violation of the anti-trust law. If not, then it is Harry's complacency that led him to his predicament. Further, if Harry and Pete did not agree on the amount of space that will be available to reach Harry's house and eventually Pete only provides enough space for only a single person reach the house, then once again it is Harry's fault and not Pete's.
As for the anti-trust law, the consumers should have complained 10+ years ago about the bundling (including SMB) into Windows with increased cost. I am sure none did as it was not a problem then, but they are complaining now because they don't want to bear responsibilities for their actions (hence, losses) but rather want MS to bear the losses. I would agree that this would be fair claim if MS has made a promise about the state of the items in the bundle in their present and future releases. No such thing ever happened. I doubt if EULA provides such protection to the consumer.
For me a competition is fair when I have the same freedom to develop a software as the opponent. Now if I choose to develop a software that depends on the software of my competitor, I think it is only proper to procure rights to this dependent software or choose an alternatre solution to solve the same problem. Independent of the reason, it is incorrect to infringe the a competitor's rights because it may be our rights that may be at stake in the future.
The important question here is "Did MS promise/gaurantee to the consumer that it will not do such a switch in the future?" If so, then such a switch is illegal. If not, then it is fair business.
I think that, in the present day, a certain way of using technology by the majority is implicitly assumed to be the standard even when the provider does not explicitly say so, hence, the consumer should be blamed for such naive assumptions.
Further, I don't hear the common consumer bitch-and-moan about the issues with MS. Rather its the collectives that do so. The common consumer realizes that certain things does not work with Windows and either lives with it because he/she made a conscious yet naive decision or change by embracing Mac or Linux or alternative technology. The collectives on the otherhand try to prove that they are correct when they are indeed incorrect just because they have the number. Interestingly, in most such cases, although the collectives have the number, they seldom have the intellect to change or produce a genuine innovative change. In the present case, the commission being the collective.
After reading a little about the case, my understanding was that the commission is asking Microsoft to publicize their protocol standards so that it encourages competition. As my understanding goes, competition is not based on knowing how your opponent does what he/she does; it is based on if you can do better than your opponent.
MS releases SMB protocol, the Samba group developed a public implementation, and lots of people used Samba. Great! But no where in this picture did MS and Samba reach an agreement. So, why would MS be liable to any changes to SMB or other parts of Windows that might affect the functioning of Samba? Even if publicizing such a change meant that it would address world poverty (I'm sure in such cases MS will publicize the protocol) let alone convert a matchbox into a file server.
I think such cases illustrates the lack of competitive spirit in modern day business. Instead of competing via innovation when unable to collaborate, it seems that people are more interested in just stealing innovations.
Furthermore, the commission's demands suggests that either
1) the competitors are stupid (Samba developers cannot be stupid!) and cannot come up with a novel idea that can surpass Microsoft's protocol standards? or
2) the competitors want a share of the pie they did not cook?
I will be surprised if any competent developer will agree to either of the above suggestions. Now, if Samba developers do indeed want to work on MS protocols and deliver a better public product, then why don't they work with Microsoft instead of working against Microsoft? If MS does not want to collaborate with Samba, then why not develop an alternative and convince the public that the alternative is a better choice? I know that it is easier said than done, but then, nodoby said competition was easy.
Slashdot Mirror
Could you elaborate "crush alternative vendors by unfair means"?
"although your right to choose is still there, but there is limited choices." -- In trade, nobody promises you choices. You make the best of the available choices or you create alternative choices. In doing so, you sustain profits and losses; that is trade.
"No matter how good your alternative software is, still people are unlikely to use it because all their data is already in Microsoft proprietary format" -- So, the people and not Microsoft have to find a way to get out of this fix. This was people's choice and not Microsoft's.
So, you do agree the market has locked in. And this is by choice of the market not because of MS (yes, MS may have twisted the arm in the deal, but the market still had a choice). Hence, it is the markets fault not MSs.
As for a computer retailer selling PCs with Windows, the reasons are obvious.
- users prefer Windows
- retailers prefer Windows due to maintenance cost (atleast on the outset)
- law requires a retailer to sell the machine with some O/S
Now if either of these changed, the retailers can sell PCs without Windows. But the choice in either 1 or 2 lies with the consumer or the retailer and not with MS. In case 3, the consumer has a choice to custom build his/her PC when the retailer provides no choice about the bundled O/S. As far as I have seen, the consumer is being lazy and wants to play it safe, hence, makes a safe choice. But when the choice bites him/her, they shove the responsibility onto MS.
Also, I don't think this case is about bundling of software with the PC or bundling of the browser with the OS. It is more about competitors using the government to bite into the market share of the leader.
Well, compatibility is a consumer issue its not a vendor issue because it is based on consumer's choice and not on vendors.
Why can't EU use something else? Who is forcing EU to subscribe to Microsoft projects? Quite a few governments (some in South America, some in Asia) have switched to Linux. So, why can't EU do so?
As for forcing the citizens to use something else, I think EU or any government should not force a particular software on its citizen. Similarly, they should not rob corporations of their IP rights.
What does it mean for EU to enable other people to enter the marketplace? Stiffle progress each time a competitor gets left behind? Rob the IP right of the leader just because he is good? What you are suggesting is something that is illustratively described by Ayn Rand in her "Atlas Shrugged" novel, and it does not suggest a good state of affairs.
EU or any other government should provide a fair framework with equal rights for each competitor and then monitor that the framework is fair. As for the consumers choice, the government should stay out.
If consumers wanted Linux based PC, then there will be some vendor who will cater it -- supply and demand. The issue is that consumers don't make the Linux choice for various reasons.
So, who is responsible for supporting a product in a given environment? Is it the product vendor or the environment vendor? It is clearly the product vendor.
:-) )
May be the product vendor can function better if the environment vendor cooperated. Since there is no legally binding agreement between the vendors, I don't see a reason for the cooperation (except for the general good).
I stand corrected about attributing the innovation of SMB to MS.
As for the changes that made it incompatible to CIFS, why doesn't the commission buy the technology from MS? Have they even tried it? Cos' I'm sure MS would have spent time and resource on developing the technology (changes) and would like to benefit from it as its competitors. Instead the commission is forcing MS to release the changes and blatantly stealing propreitary information. (It is surprising that the western world harps about IP infringement in East Asia but condones the same in such cases -- this is for another day
I think this case is not about consumer rights or public good. It is more of a showcase to ascertain the commissions stand in Europe via bullying and, unfortunately, MS is the scape goat.
A more interesting and important question is "will the commission/governments not do the same to any other commercial and/or open source software organization?" I think this is certainly a possibility. Isn't this what happened in the Apple vs France case -- infringe rights in the name of interoperability? Now, what would happen if the creative and innovative companies like MS and Apple shutdown? Who would be at loss? Would it be the consumers or the companies?
Just because the creator benefit from the creation and the consumer, it would be naive to think that the consumer is the king. Without the creators, the king would be living an undeveloped wasteland.
In short, as the consumer has already committed to the choice, the provider is leveraging the committment. So, why doesn't the consumer make a different choice? Cos' I really doubt if the provider can directly stop the consumer from making a different choice. As for the indirect influence, the consumer handed over the whip to the provider, hence, he/she has to bear the consequence.
Continuing on the cheese example, the situation is that the consumer knew it was crappy cheese but found it useful (this may not match with the analogy), hence, they became comfortable in using the crappy cheese. Now, when the TV maker decided to change the flavor of the cheese, the baker who was buying TV from TV maker is complaining about the cheese! Well, the purpose of buying a TV was not to buy condiments to run a bakery. So, I think the complaint is groundless.
A more primitive example is that Harry sells Pete all of the land that surrounds Harry's house, i.e. there is not path to Harry's house without going through the Pete's land. Then Harry whines that Pete is charging Harry to move through Pete's lands to get to Harry's house. Now, if Harry and Pete had agreed that Harry will be able to use Pete's lands to reach Harry's house when they transacted, then it is a violation of the anti-trust law. If not, then it is Harry's complacency that led him to his predicament. Further, if Harry and Pete did not agree on the amount of space that will be available to reach Harry's house and eventually Pete only provides enough space for only a single person reach the house, then once again it is Harry's fault and not Pete's.
As for the anti-trust law, the consumers should have complained 10+ years ago about the bundling (including SMB) into Windows with increased cost. I am sure none did as it was not a problem then, but they are complaining now because they don't want to bear responsibilities for their actions (hence, losses) but rather want MS to bear the losses. I would agree that this would be fair claim if MS has made a promise about the state of the items in the bundle in their present and future releases. No such thing ever happened. I doubt if EULA provides such protection to the consumer.
For me a competition is fair when I have the same freedom to develop a software as the opponent. Now if I choose to develop a software that depends on the software of my competitor, I think it is only proper to procure rights to this dependent software or choose an alternatre solution to solve the same problem. Independent of the reason, it is incorrect to infringe the a competitor's rights because it may be our rights that may be at stake in the future.
The important question here is "Did MS promise/gaurantee to the consumer that it will not do such a switch in the future?" If so, then such a switch is illegal. If not, then it is fair business.
I think that, in the present day, a certain way of using technology by the majority is implicitly assumed to be the standard even when the provider does not explicitly say so, hence, the consumer should be blamed for such naive assumptions.
Further, I don't hear the common consumer bitch-and-moan about the issues with MS. Rather its the collectives that do so. The common consumer realizes that certain things does not work with Windows and either lives with it because he/she made a conscious yet naive decision or change by embracing Mac or Linux or alternative technology. The collectives on the otherhand try to prove that they are correct when they are indeed incorrect just because they have the number. Interestingly, in most such cases, although the collectives have the number, they seldom have the intellect to change or produce a genuine innovative change. In the present case, the commission being the collective.
Well, then the consumers should embrace a different solution. If they don't (please note that it is possible), then its their problem and not MS.
After reading a little about the case, my understanding was that the commission is asking Microsoft to publicize their protocol standards so that it encourages competition. As my understanding goes, competition is not based on knowing how your opponent does what he/she does; it is based on if you can do better than your opponent.
MS releases SMB protocol, the Samba group developed a public implementation, and lots of people used Samba. Great! But no where in this picture did MS and Samba reach an agreement. So, why would MS be liable to any changes to SMB or other parts of Windows that might affect the functioning of Samba? Even if publicizing such a change meant that it would address world poverty (I'm sure in such cases MS will publicize the protocol) let alone convert a matchbox into a file server.
I think such cases illustrates the lack of competitive spirit in modern day business. Instead of competing via innovation when unable to collaborate, it seems that people are more interested in just stealing innovations.
Furthermore, the commission's demands suggests that either
1) the competitors are stupid (Samba developers cannot be stupid!) and cannot come up with a novel idea that can surpass Microsoft's protocol standards? or
2) the competitors want a share of the pie they did not cook?
I will be surprised if any competent developer will agree to either of the above suggestions. Now, if Samba developers do indeed want to work on MS protocols and deliver a better public product, then why don't they work with Microsoft instead of working against Microsoft? If MS does not want to collaborate with Samba, then why not develop an alternative and convince the public that the alternative is a better choice? I know that it is easier said than done, but then, nodoby said competition was easy.