The moment Microsoft announced it would lock other browsers out of being installed on Windows RT, we all knew regulatory bodies the world over were wringing their hands. Today, this has been confirmed: in the wake of an investigation into Microsoft not complying with the existing antitrust rulings regarding browser choice, the EU has also announced it’s investigating Windows 8 x86 and Windows 8 RT (ARM).
This week, the EU announced it was investigating Microsoft because the company apparently didn’t comply with the rules surrounding that ridiculous browser choice dialog monstrosity. The company quickly admitted fault, and announced it would extend the browser choice dialog for another 15 months. In summary, there was a bug in the detection software that caused the browser choice dialog to not be shipped to new PCs with Windows 7 SP1.
In the wake of this error and ensuing EU investigation, the boys and girls up in Brussels decided to, for good measure, also investigate the issues surrounding browsers in Windows 8. The EU will investigate Google’s and Mozilla’s claims that Internet Explorer 10 has access to special APIs, while third party browsers do not. In addition, the EU will also dive into the issue of Windows RT being locked down from third party desktop browsers.
I’m actually not happy with this investigation – it focusses on entirely the wrong subject. It is, in fact, far too specific. What we need is an investigation into restricted computers in general, and whether or not it’s healthy for competition that companies like Apple and Microsoft get full control over what software we do and do not run on our devices – not because of technical limitations, but because of conscious, artificial limitations put in place specifically to hinder competition. Just look at how you can’t even change default email applications in iOS.
I hope that, one day, we reach a point where every device comes with a developer switch we can flick to enable full ownership of our devices. That would be a far worthier cause for the EU to fight for than annoying browser choice dialogs. They’re fighting symptoms here, not the root cause.
I’ve wondered why Apple is getting a free pass on their browser and email lockdown on the iPad, which dominates the market, while Microsoft is already receiving scrutiny for a product that isn’t out yet.
Because Microsoft was investigated for and found guilty of abusing their monopoly in operating systems to obstruct competition in browsers. Apple hasn’t been investigated for that, and I can’t see how the situation is the same: even though iOS dominates the tablet, it is far from dominating the web — it’s actually closer to Linux than to OS X in market share, i.e. insignificant.
Remember back when the web was ‘designed for IE6’? That’s what happens when a monopolist is able to kill its competition.
Edited 2012-07-18 22:19 UTC
Well, that’s easy to point out – codecs. Apple dominates the web with allowing usage of only MP3 and H.264 on their devices for web audio/video, and banning browsers that could allow using open codecs (Vorbis, Theora, VP8 and etc.). This way they indirectly push Web developers to use these closed codecs if they want to target Apple mobile devices (which are a big part of the market and can hardly be ignored).
Essentially Web publishers are forced to encode their content twice – in open codecs for normal browsers, and in closed codecs for mobile Safari (same story will be with Windows RT it seems). Encoding in closed codecs requires licensing if publishing has commercial purpose. Plus doubling hosting space costs money and less efficient closed codecs waste more energy, being bad for the environment. So in essence Apple does dominate the web with their ban on alternative browsers for iOS.
IE on mobile MS devices has the same issue. On the desktop, IE can be remedied with installing plugins to support open codecs, while on mobile devices with their crazy restrictions this is impossible.
Edited 2012-07-19 00:27 UTC
Agreed. On top of the stupid H.264 and mp3 requirements I also get more and more websites that want Chrome or IE for ‘the best experience’ or even to function. In that way Chrome has joined IE6.
Firefox has joined IE like that much sooner, and it was overall much worse in the times of “IE or FF” – but with the wide adoption of Webkit (so also Chrome), which gives us at least three commonly used browser engine families, the web in general has become much more standards-compliant (which is particularly noticeable if you use some outsider – Opera, for example)
Yes, that’s what I feared as well, back when I thought there would be something in all the hype. But the iPad isn’t taking over the web, it segments it into, well, web and apps. Giving iOS users a crippled web experience just encourages them to pay for “premium” app content.
AAC more than MP3. And open codecs are a plenty nice enough concept that you don’t have to make up issues with closed ones – perf is fine, they are actually usually best supported.
Overall, it’s hardly only Apple, and not really too big long-term problem (especially with open codecs providing some pressure…) – big players behind most consumer toys are also the ones behind mpeg-la, they will protect it, the support will be there. That is the point, and why they will continue pushing it.
All new TV standards use h264 + aac (well, or a bit earlier mpeg standards, for now, if their particular variant was introduced a bit “too soon” in places), and none uses the likes of vp8. h264 will be the standard for most of the rest of your life, or all of it, accept it (which also means that its ~patents/closed issues on the web will go away relatively soon)
How can you not see how they are similar? Desktops are a mature market like washers, people don’t replace them until they break. Mobile is the new desktop and Apple has taken every page out of the Gates playbook and THEN some. Even in his wildest dreams did Gates even think about locking out third parties completely yet Apple, which just FYI owns the top of both the pad and the phone markets by a pretty large margin, does so and nobody even blinks.
I’m sorry but Thom is right, there needs to be an investigation but not of MSFT but the whole mobile industry. All they will do is bum another check from MSFT while Apple take their place in this new market and if they aren’t careful just as MSFT was investigated years after the companies that could have competed closed their doors so too will Apple get a slap on the wrist while the competition dies.
I mean for the love of Pete Jobs was able to single handedly destroy Flash on mobile, which just so happened to give developers a way to bypass the appstore and you don’t think that is significant?
Because the iPad has never been anything other than a locked-down, integrated product, hardware and software sold as one – there’s simply no expectation that users should be able to do stuff Apple don’t allow.
Whereas Windows has a long history of being a general purpose OS that can be installed on most hardware, and customised to the user’s tastes. Microsoft, therefore, are seen as being anti-competitive by taking away rights that the user previously had.
Which isn’t to say that Apple *shouldn’t* be investigated, but it does explain why the two cases are treated differently.
But that’s the thing. There is no history of Windows on tablets, either.
At least, on anything even remotely resembling an iPad.
Of course, most of Microsoft’s market is based around Windows being a software platform open to developers, but just a few short years ago, that was also true about Apple.
Sounds like you’re providing the defense that Microsoft should use.
For WindowsRT does not have a “long history of being a general purpose OS that can be installed on most hardware and customized to the user’s tastes.”
WindowsRT is like iOS in that:
WindowsRT apps can only come from the MS app store (exceptions made for people that develop their own apps.) And WindowsRT cannot be purchased by consumers. WindowsRT is only available as part of “integrated” hardware/software devices that are made for sale.
So, if your theories are indeed what allows Apple to get away with anything they want wrt iOS, then the EU doesn’t hav a leg to stand on, since WindowsRT is the exact same thing. The EU would be complete and utter hypocrites if they attack Microsoft for WindowsRT while letting Apple do whatever the hell it wants wrt iOS.
P.S.
Note that WindowsRT can’t run any Win32 apps, and therefore cannot take advantage of the apps that the “monopoly” OS runs. So x86 Windows being a “monopoly” OS is meaningless wrt WindowsRT. So the EU can’t even use that argument with a straight face.
Edited 2012-07-19 00:11 UTC
Maybe Microsoft should go even further and not allow sales of any WindowsRT devices in the EU except for their own Surface product. That would totally cement the “integrated hardware/software” argument in Microsoft’s favor (though I think they already have that argument going for them, as I said in the parent post).
That would be the ultimate irony: If Microsoft responded to this EU action by choosing to make Surface the only WindowsRT product available in the EU, the EU couldn’t do a damn thing about it and would have to shut down their “investigation” (since they couldn’t get around the “integrated hardware/software solution” argument), and the EU would have nothing but themselves to blame for the reduction in consumer choices for EU citizens.
I think it has less to do with the “integrated” nature of the product than it does with monopoly power. The antitrust case in the early 2000s was specifically about x86-class computers. Microsoft doesn’t have monopoly power in the ARM-based OS market. Technically speaking, nobody does, since the market is so broad and encompasses a wide swathe of mobile devices (phones, tablets, etc). My guess is that the EU is primarily interested in the x86 market, but is casting a wary eye at the ARM market to understand the competitive dynamics; either way, the EU really can’t do much about ARM, given Microsoft’s lack of monopoly power. Microsoft can pretty much do anything it wants there.
Antitrust matters aren’t about killing monopolies in existing categories, it’s about making sure those monopolies aren’t used to extend it into new markets.
What Microsoft is doing with Windows 8 is text book antitrust behaviour: They use their x86 monopoly to push Metro, to reap the rewards (mindshare, applications) on ARM devices and in the mobile space.
You’re erecting a strawman. Nothing I said contradicts that point.
Bullshit. Having x86 monopoly power doesn’t give Microsoft any leverage to extend its dominance into the ARM market. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Microsoft can’t strong-arm OEMs to tie x86 and ARM together. It can’t force consumers to buy ARM machines. It’s an entirely separate market and category. Go back and read the market definition for the antitrust trial. It’s specifically for “x86-based operating systems”. Not ARM operating systems. Furthermore, apps written for x86 won’t run natively on ARM. The apps need to be ported/recompiled for ARM.
I’m sure that you’ll come back with some nebulous statement about how the common Metro interface, itself, somehow magically transforms into market power on ARM. But that’s complete bullshit. The interface gives Microsoft no more power than, say, Google’s standardization on the Java runtime on Android gives it power over the ARM market.
tomcat,
“Bullshit. Having x86 monopoly power doesn’t give Microsoft any leverage to extend its dominance into the ARM market. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Microsoft can’t strong-arm OEMs to tie x86 and ARM together. It can’t force consumers to buy ARM machines.”
Watch that temper! I think the post you responded to was right, actually. Microsoft isn’t forcing consumers to buy ARM machines, but they’ve already used their power to negatively influence ARM UEFI specs to the detriment of competitors. And there’s certainly room for microsoft to pressure ARM OEMS by using their status as a x86 monopoly.
I’m not asserting that they ARE doing it, but clearly they COULD. I am not privy to the backroom deals, but hypothetically MS might give additional x86 discounts to OEMs who bundle only Windows with their ARM products. This is certainly not out of the realm of possibilities and it’s clearly within the realm of anti-trust.
Not at all. UEFI doesn’t prevent OEMs from installing any other operating system. The OEM gets to decide what gets installed on a device (Linux, Windows, etc); and, by extension, the consumer gets to decide which device they want. The consumer is under no pressure to choose any particular device.
You have a strange definition of “pressure”. Offering OEMs a financial incentive to install Windows everywhere isn’t banned by the consent decree. What is banned is (1) charging per-processor royalties even if the OEM doesn’t install Windows, and (2) charging the OEM more than other OEMs if they don’t install Windows (punitive terms). But Microsoft isn’t doing either one of those things. OEMs are under no pressure to accept Microsoft’s financial incentives; in fact, they’re free to accept counter-proposals from any other OS vendor (Red Hat, Google, etc). That is the very essence of competition and, while Microsoft’s size certainly gives them an advantage in offering lucrative financial terms, the court doesn’t guarantee that competitors will be able to match all others. And nobody is asserting that Microsoft is “dumping” its software in the market at below-cost. So, quite frankly, you’re wrong.
Edited 2012-07-19 21:22 UTC
“UEFI doesn’t prevent OEMs from installing any other operating system.”
Actually, that’s precisely what it does when combined with microsoft’s requirement that OEM ARM hardware must not boot anything but microsoft’s own OS. I don’t presume you care about any of this, but you should at least understand it. OEMS should be allowed to sell ARM devices that are advertised as both windows 8 and linux compatible but microsoft doesn’t permit it.
“You have a strange definition of ‘pressure’. Offering OEMs a financial incentive to install Windows everywhere isn’t banned by the consent decree.”
Call it what you will, but it is still a valid rebuttal to your assertion that microsoft’s desktop monopoly in no way gives them leverage on new ARM devices.
Edited 2012-07-20 00:59 UTC
Read for comprehension. I said “UEFI doesn’t prevent OEMs from installing any other operating system”. You buy an ARM machine as a packaged unit. Complete with OS and device. You don’t reinstall the OS. As other posters have suggested, if you want an ARM device with Linux on it, buy a Linux-based ARM device.
tomcat,
“Read for comprehension. I said ‘UEFI doesn’t prevent OEMs from installing any other operating system'”
I heard you the first time, it’s still microsoft ordering OEMs to ban other operating systems on ARM devices that include windows. This is well documented.
For an OEM wanting to ship both windows and linux, they’re now forced to ship separate skus, which doubles many of costs that go into a single sku of the product. Consider: Different packaging. The need to stock additional inventory for each model. Creating customer confusion over having multiple physically identical models. Double the risk of unsold inventory if one of the models doesn’t sell. Even the retailer needs to allocate additional floor space. These are all major disincentives to offering a separate non-windows version, you can’t just write these off as insignificant. An OEM might be happy to serve a 2% linux market share if one product could be sold to both windows and linux buyers. However many OEMS and retailers will understandably baulk at creating a separate product for only 2% of the market.
You might argue that these aren’t microsoft’s problem, however due to UEFI restrictions, it is their *fault*.
I know you are a microsoft apologist, and you think it is their right to dictate hardware restrictions when OEMs want to bundle windows. Perhaps that is true, but we must stop pretending that it has no influence on choices of OEMs and consumers.
Not at all. Microsoft is simply telling OEMs that they need to implement UEFI if they want to install Windows on ARM. Ultimately, it’s the OEM’s decision. They’re under no obligation to do what Microsoft wants. And that’s the point: Microsoft can’t use its dominance with x86 to compel OEMs to do anything here.
Do you have any evidence that an OEM wants to do that?
These are all bogus assertions. OEMs have countless phone models, all running different operating systems. None of them run two operating systems.
Sure, but it isn’t an antitrust issue. Which was the whole point of this discussion.
No, I’m an advocate of not pretending that everything has to cater to the lame whims of open sores proponents.
Again, provide any evidence that OEMs and consumers want multiple operating systems on their mobile devices. That’s a bullshit assertion.
tomcat,
“Sure, but it isn’t an antitrust issue. Which was the whole point of this discussion.”
Ah, well maybe it is, maybe it’s not…we won’t know until the courts decide. However I’m glad you’ve at least conceded the point.
“They’re under no obligation to do what Microsoft wants”
…unless they are selling windows on ARM, or unless microsoft exerts pressure using their existing monopoly. It is evident that you don’t appreciate the amount of damage microsoft could inflict upon OEMs who defy them. To deny what I’m saying is to admit ignorance of microsoft’s history. A very famous quote springs to mind: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Right, and essentially similar to the Windows logo program on x86. Microsoft has certain basic requirements that the OEM has to meet to get a Windows logo. UEFI is no different.
No, sorry, I call bullshit. You keep throwing that assertion around without any specifics. Microsoft is explicitly banned from using punitive measures wrt its x86 market dominance. It can’t charge OEMs more. It can’t exclude them. It has to use the same non-discriminatory pricing that all other OEMs get, regardless of what they do. So, again, unless you have any specifics about what “Microsoft exerts pressure using their existing monopoly”, your comments don’t hold any water.
Of course, since you decline to describe what that “damage” could be — other than non-specific fear directed at pre-consent decree behavior — your assertion is crap.
tomcat,
“Microsoft has certain basic requirements that the OEM has to meet to get a Windows logo. UEFI is no different.”
Up until ARM, microsoft’s requirements have just been about what the hardware must support in order to be windows compatible. Now with ARM, microsoft is actually requiring that OEM hardware cannot boot into other operating systems if windows is loaded on it. Obviously that’s an anti-competitive requirement, even if you believe MS are entitled to do it.
Alfman: “^aEUR| or unless microsoft exerts pressure using their existing monopoly.”
“No, sorry, I call bullshit. You keep throwing that assertion around without any specifics.”
I already gave examples of how microsoft COULD abuse their monopoly position, and frankly you should be able to come with plenty more. Please go back and reread what I said carefully, you won’t see anywhere any assertions that microsoft IS abusing it’s monopoly today. Before you “call bullshit”, next time make sure the assertion your claiming is bullshit was actually asserted.
I quote myself: “I’m not asserting that they ARE doing it, but clearly they COULD.”
“Microsoft is explicitly banned from using punitive measures wrt its x86 market dominance. It can’t charge OEMs more. It can’t exclude them. It has to use the same non-discriminatory pricing that all other OEMs get, regardless of what they do.”
Here, finally we can agree. Because governments today are keeping a close watch on microsoft’s activities, it limits microsoft’s abilities to illegally exploit it’s monopoly as it has in the past. And, in my opinion, that’s a good thing.
Can we end the discussion on this without any immature language?
No, I disagree. It means you can’t install anything other than Windows ON THAT INDIVIDUAL HARDWARE DEVICE. It’s not anti-competitive because it doesn’t preclude the OEM from offering an alternative OS on the SAME HARDWARE. The OEM can still do whatever they like. If they care about other OSes, they can go for it; if not, they haven’t lost anything. Competition is still preserved.
We are moving toward an era in which hardware is becoming a locked-down appliance. Some open sores proponents decry that change, but it offers benefits to users that you probably won’t admit; namely, it prevents third parties from screwing with and destabilizing the tested configuration. That ensures a greater level of reliability for end-users.
And there is ZERO evidence that OEMs or consumers want multiple OSes on their devices.
Ergo, no harm, no foul.
Oh please.
The ARM UEFI specs aren’t relevant.
Android tablets are still going to be produced by those OEMs. What do the UEFI specs of WindowsRT ARM devices have to do with Adroid ARM devices? Nothing.
And if you want to boot linux or BSD or Solaris or whatever random OS on an ARM device, but you can’t do it on a Windows RT device because of UEFI, then just get an Android or ChromeOS ARM device and install your random OS on that.
WindowsRT ARM decices are complete solutions. They are complete integrated hardware/software devices. They are not meant to be able to run random OSes, just like the iPad isn’t meant to run random OSes. Such devices run with the OS they come with, because the OS is part and parcel of the device as a complete integrated hardware/software solution. You don’t like it? Then get different ARM device; they’ll be plenty available for you to play with.
Linux advocates keep conflating this issue as an antitrust issue when, in fact, UEFI doesn’t discriminate against other operating systems. Choice of the OS remains with the OEM. Not Microsoft.
It’s the same perennial fetish for Linux fanboys: “l37’Z 7ry 7o hUr7 MiCrOSOf7 sOM3HoW 8y Ins74lLin’ lINuX on 4 d3vIC3 7H47 No NORm4l hUM4N woUld 3V3R 4773mp7.”
Wait, doesn’t everybody re-flash the firmware in their car engines?
With all due respect, they are not complete devices. Apple sells a complete device. They engineer it, they build it, they load iOS on it. They control everything from the silicon up. Windows RT device are different. They are not designed nor built by Microsoft. Microsoft, other than the uEFI part, does not dictate what hardware goes into the device. Nor does Microsoft control pricing or distribution of the devices. No, Windows RT devices are more like common PC devices. And since its the same OEMs, this represents a problem. We know for a fact that the margins for PC makers is razor thin. As such, Microsoft has the power, through pricing of both WIndows RT and Windows 8, to greatly affect the livelihood of the OEMs. That is why there needs to be oversight.
Actually, that’s bullshit. The requirements for offering a Windows RT-based device are very exacting and overseen by Microsoft. An OEM can’t just slap together a machine like they do with x86, and ship it. The logo process is far more stringent and doesn’t allow crapware to be loaded.
This might come as a shock to you, but the EU is not US …and in the EU cases against MS, it wasn’t really, as in the US, explicitly about ~Intel machines.
OTOH, the EU cases (and rulings, and big fines) were about so broad things as access to protocols, specifications to be used by 3rd party software vendors. The issue with browsers would probably fit those.
I disagree. We can clearly see there is an obvious double-standard being used here. I hope Apple drowns in its own arrogance.
I think you just found Microsoft’s defence, and potentially the path to the larger investigation that Thom is asking for.
MS wouldn’t really care that much if they lost this as long as the EU also wallops Apple.
There are several different browsers you can install on an iPad and use besides Safari…. Google Chrome, Dolphin, just to name two, check out this list:
http://appadvice.com/appguides/show/ipad-web-browsers
Microsoft is not going to allow any other browser to be installed on Windows RT. Huge difference.
As for email, there is the excellent Sparrow email client. The one thing Apple does not allow, and I agree this is wrong, is that you cannot change the setting for the default client for email and web browsing.
Edited 2012-07-19 11:03 UTC
iOS mandates that 3rd-party browsers use the webkit engine that comes with iOS, though. So Firefox is banned,because Firefox uses gecko. Only if Mozilla changed Firefox to use the iOS webkit engine, would Apple allow Firefox to run on iOS.
Microsoft isn’t nearly as harsh in that respect. Microsoft will allow Firefox to run on WindowsRT, but Mozilla says that their javascript engine won’t run fast because WindowsRT lacks access to certain Win32 apis (WinRT only supports a subset of Win32 api).
So Microsoft is already treating Mozilla better than Apple does. Moreover, just as Mozilla could change Firefox to use webkit when running on iOS, Mozilla could change Firefox to use the IE engine (I think it’s called “Trident”), when running on WindowsRT.
So WindowsRT is at least as permissive as iOS wrt Mozilla, and actually more so. Mozilla is being hypocritical by complaining about WindowsRT (which as zero percent marketshare, BTW) while not lodging similar complaints against iOS, which has a harsher policy AND controls 80% of the ARM market.
Not at present, anyway. But Apple didn’t allow any other browser than Safari on the iPad and iPhone initially, as well. There will undoubtedly be pressure on Microsoft to allow other browsers and, like Apple, they will probably relent, since they have corporate customers that use other browsers.
Those are just UIs to iOS-included Webkit engine, basically the same as used by Safari, but with worse javascript engine.
Essentially just what MS wants to do with RT …which is in a way less restrictive: you can use your own HTML parser (but not js engine, performance of which will hence also suffer)
Keep asking that question publicly and it will be Apple’s turn
I don’t know about the EU, but in the US the courts have consistently missed the real problem in regards to Microsoft. MS has a monopoly in laptop/desktop operating systems due to their undue leverage over OEMs. They’ve used this leverage to threaten OEMs that don’t support Windows 100% (for example, by levying the “MS Tax” on every computer sold rather than every Windows copy sold, by threatening to cut off suppliers that don’t follow MS’s dictates, etc).
Until the courts solve this problem, the underlying reason for Microsoft’s Windows monopoly, everything else is a sideshow.
Very true.
In all due respects the dominance of Windows remains because there is a lack of an alternative operating system with the same depth and breadth of hardware and software support that the Windows ecosystem has. Until there is a viable alternative things won’ change and all the court punishments in the world is merely punishing a company in a dominant position because the alternatives are either too expensive, too constrictive or just plain crap.
Whether Windows is the only thing viable or not, why can’t any consumer or business buy a desktop or laptop without paying for Windows from any major supplier? What if I already have a copy of Windows or need to downgrade to something else? Do you know that there are many enterprises spending money on unused Windows 7 licenses because they can no longer purchase an XP downgrade with each new system they buy?
Enterprise customers right now can purchase directly and not have an operating system installed.
Regarding consumers – it has always been a problem and I really can’t see much being done to resolve it until there is a way to force vendors to offer a BTO of not having an operating system installed. I know back when i purchased my Dell desktop I requested Windows 98SE not to be installed because I already had a copy of Microsoft Windows 2000 and I was hoping to save a few bucks – sorry, I wasn’t allowed to ask for a computer with no operating system. IMHO things won’t really improve in that area until there is more transparency also in the pricing of Windows but like the above I doubt it’ll happen anytime soon.
Because believe it or not, it actually probably costs more money to do that, than offer it without.
They have to be stored separately, warehouse room made for them, the inventory system has to be made separately … etc. etc. etc.
It constantly frustrates me that those who want to run an alternative operating system, won’t make the effort to buy from those manufacturers that cater for them.
The reason that I got from Dell when I tried around 10 years ago was that they test all their hardware against Windows hence I’d assume if they were going to sell blank machines they would have to load Windows, test, then clear the hard disk which takes extra time.
I think they have their own test suite now that is built into the machine.
Uhhh…you can? And have been able to for several years now? Go to the HP enterprise website and see for yourself, you can order with Windows, with Red Hat or with no OS at all if you desire. this covers desktops, laptops and servers and last I checked Dell did so as well and I believe so too does Lenovo.
And as for downgrades that is “software assurance” and not only is it 100% legal (since no law says MSFT has to continue supporting products they no longer sell) but any company is free not to buy it if they so choose, they can simply run Win 7 or Linux or whatever they want, they simply can’t demand free licenses to old software. BTW I don’t like the new Adobe Photoshop, where is the outrage that I can’t run the older version that I don’t have a license for for free?
As for why they do it that is simple, as someone who has supported those kinds of businesses it is because they developed a mission critical relationship with software that frankly is either poorly supported or in some cases not supported at all anymore. Again that is their choice and MSFT doesn’t have to give them a way to run Windows XP at all. In fact last I checked (its been a few years) you could go back as far as Win9X with a SA or MSDN license. I know that I had to keep building new old stock Win2K systems for a company whose graphic designers had tons of in house scripts for Macomedia XRes which took ages to convert over to Coral and Adobe.
So I’m sorry but these complaints are simply crazy. Apple doesn’t sell you a license for OSX 10.1 anymore and nobody complains, yet MSFT offers to sell you licenses to old software they haven’t sold in years and that is bad? Nobody forces anyone to stick with the old version, nobody forces them to buy Windows over Linux or no OS, it is their choice to do so.
“In all due respects the dominance of Windows remains because there is a lack of an alternative operating system with the same depth and breadth of hardware and software support that the Windows ecosystem has.”
What is fascinating to me about your quote is how when it comes to the smart phone market, it’s Microsoft that can’t seem to be get any market share. Does anyone seriously believe that Microsoft doesn’t have the same depth and breadth of hardware and software support that the Android ecosystem has? Seriously? Doesn’t Microsoft at least have more depth and breadth of hardware support that Apple’s iphone?
I think what Microsoft’s terrible performance in the smart phone market in spite of being a gigantic software company does is to validate 2 statements:
1) (Almost) Nobody wants to do business with Microsoft in the phone market, both maker and consumer. A good question is to ask why this is so.
2) If it wasn’t for their anti-competitive Microsoft tax on every CPU shipped by hardware OEMs, discounts to OEMs who didn’t install other OSes, and ensuring during the 90’s that no OEM bootloader was pre-installed for other OSes, Microsoft wouldn’t have gotten their PC monopoly.
I’m satisfied by their own performance in the phone market that the only way they could have succeeded was by their at least unsavory business practices. This whole thing with UEFI for Arm based tablets is just their 90’s strategy of excluding other operating systems forcibly rehashed again.
What an interesting quote given you ignored what I was replying to – lets quote it and put in bold so your brain can process it more clearly:
The reply was in regards to Windows on the the desktop/laptop (their traditional markets) and why an alternative hasn’t emerged.
Or it could be simpler than that – Microsoft has a disjointed stop-and-start history when it comes to phones and tablets. For hardware companies the margins are razor thin at the best of times so I hardly blame any of them from being sceptical when it comes to ideas coming out of a company that has a reputation for not always sticking with something for the long term. Then there is the issue regarding the incredibly limited range of hardware that Windows Phone 7 supported with vendors asking why even spend money on designing devices that are going to be stuck with 4 year old components and unable to compete with Android and iPhone especially when it comes to the consumer market with games growing in popularity.
Regarding your point 2) regarding the discount given to those who went exclusive, how is that any different to any other organisation that is on the market? I know right now there are large food processing companies who pay supermarkets for prominent positions on the shelf (eye level is buy level as the old saying goes). I remember in Australia there were surf shops who were paid a bonus if the kept a competitor out of their retail store and exclusively stocked their particular brand – again, it is hardly an unheard of practice. When it comes to what Microsoft did – nothing stopped the OEM from absorbing the higher cost at the time because I know white box vendors at least where I was offered dual boot configurations etc. but the differences is they gave you the non-supercheap OEM copy since the small whitebox vendors couldn’t apply for the discount since it was only for the big players.
That is still myth-forming, no matter how hard you want to believe it now. Sure, MS often also played dirty (who didn’t or wouldn’t try, given the opportunity?) – but when Windows took over, it was simply by far the most viable option, others were a mess: http://www.osnews.com/thread?522221
And FFS, there is nothing in the whole UEFI thing that would stop OEMs from shipping the exact same hardware with some other OS.
Yes, seriously. Your confusion here comes from missing the most important party – mobile carriers.
Truth is, carriers very much dislike how Apple managed to strongarm large part of control from them (and BTW, Apple forces a device locked to one OS, too… as do, really, Android vendors). They don’t want to repeat that mistake with MS, Android is about them, the carriers being in control (not the OS maker, manufacturer, or consumer) …just like in the good old days of mobile phones.
Let the people fix the competition “problem”. The government needs to stay out of people’s way. What government needs to do is lower barriers to entry by eliminating/fixing the bogus patent system, decreasing the paperwork and lowering taxes.
Silly things like ballot boxes, sharing APIs, N versions, “predatory” pricing arguments only exist to waste people’s precious time/money, further career politician and grow wasteful bureaucracies.
ronaldst,
“Let the people fix the competition “problem”. The government needs to stay out of people’s way. What government needs to do is lower barriers to entry by eliminating/fixing the bogus patent system, decreasing the paperwork and lowering taxes.”
Minimal government is nice, but without some kind of regulation you end up with corporations who are willing and able to abuse the lack of corporate oversight to the detriment of everyone else and even competition itself will suffer. The trick is to find the right balance, and not to overshoot.
“Silly things like ballot boxes, sharing APIs, N versions, ‘predatory’ pricing arguments only exist to waste people’s precious time/money, further career politician and grow wasteful bureaucracies.”
It may seem silly to you, but the very existence of many small/medium tech companies may ride on things like fair market access and APIs. Large corps are willing and able to lock up the entire industry. They’d strongarm OEMs and hijack standards to control what OEMS may sell. They’d add hardware restrictions to extend their control over end users as well. They’d render competing products ineffective and incompatible. History has shown time and time again that without regulation large corporations become abusive bullies who will use sheer size to dominate the markets rather than innovation or merit.
Capitalism is great, I love it…but it needs to be played on a level playing field.
Alfman ,
Big government is nice, but you end up with corporations who are willing and able to abuse their immense corporate oversight to the detriment of everyone else and even competition itself will suffer. The trick is to leave government out of the selection of winners and losers, and not be tempted to protect people’s profit for electoral purposes.
Only where there is government granted special favours (patents, etc…) you’ll find monopolies.
Have a little faith in people, you’ll be surprised.
And where will you find people, that don’t have an agenda, to level the playing field?
ronaldst,
“Big government is nice…”
This is sarcasm; my statement “minimal government is nice” was not.
“Only where there is government granted special favours (patents, etc…) you’ll find monopolies.”
Actually, monopolies are a predicable and expected result of unbridled capitalism. The industrial revolution brought about many famous monopolists before big government.
Consider the game of monopoly. At the beginning everything is pretty fair, everyone starts with comparable assets. With the right luck and skill, one can take over the board. Now consider the exact same game, but a new player joins it much later. Neither luck nor skill will get them ahead any more because existing players own and control everything. The existing players may even be reckless and terrible, but it doesn’t matter how poorly they play because new players don’t have any chance at all without some kind of game reset or connections.
Real capitalistic markets are very similar. New markets start out with plenty of opportunity, over time they become dominated by a handful of players cornering almost the entire market. As I indicated earlier, capitalism is good, but it needs some kind of levelling mechanism to keep it from degenerating into monopolies and oligopolies.
“And where will you find people, that don’t have an agenda, to level the playing field?”
Have a little faith in people, you’ll be surprised.
On a serious note though, I think you’ve nailed down one of the problems with government – it is rarely run in the interests of it’s citizens.
Edited 2012-07-20 01:49 UTC
Small government is nice, but you end up with corporations who are willing and able to abuse their immense corporate oversight / power and take over, to the detriment of everyone else and even competition itself will suffer. Corps selecting winners and losers, profits (or “jobs”) easily manipulating the fa~A§ade of electoral process.
That is simply untrue, and I think you know it… hell, some monopolies are natural (infrastructure, and such), and need to be actively regulated or broken up by govs.
Governments are ultimately largely reflections of their populations. “Let the people fix the competition “problem”. The government needs to stay out of people’s way” in your first post in sub-thread is naive… staying out of the way of people (or “people” – corps are them in some places) wishing to push their thing is also what broke it.
I hope you also investigate the app store monopolies on devices as well.
There are two issues that people gloss over on this subject. First, iOS and Windows RT are not in the same class. iOS is completely different from OS X. Windows RT, however, is the same basically as Windows 8. They use the same kernel and are designed the same way. Therefore, restrictions on Windows RT will have affects on Windows 8 and vice versa. Hence the investigation into browser lock in.
Secondly, Apple only sells iOS and OS X on their own hardware. If Microsoft only sold its own hardware, they would be able to do a lot more than they can now without getting in trouble. But the fact that they are basically pressuring OEM’s into supporting Microsoft or going out of business will keep getting them sued.
Whether the code is built from the same sources is irrelevant. It’s about the market that the products compete in. Microsoft has no monopoly power in the ARM market; hence, the EU is blowing smoke here.
Define pressure. I don’t think you really know what you’re talking about. The DOJ has been monitoring MS’s behavior with OEMs for over a decade, and there is no pressure anymore.
Not quite: You can create a Metro App on Windows 8 that contains a JITer or uses the .NET infrastructure for ad-hoc code generation.
Both options are deliberately blocked on Windows RT.
Also not available on Windows RT: Desktop mode (except for a certain number of Microsoft Applications).
So there are differences, despite the common codebase.
I never quite understood why attempts to hit Microsoft with antitrust actions are so focused on the browser (Internet Explorer). Especially now that IE has fallen to less than 50% market share, the EU should be focusing on more relevant issues.
Microsoft is guilty of plenty of rotten things, but the browser “problem” is the tip of the iceberg. Why don’t antitrust prosecutors focus on the fact that OEMs are not allowed by Microsoft to install any other OS on their machines. Many manufacturers have wanted to offer a dual-boot computer with Windows and Linux both installed, but Microsoft will have none of it. Microsoft’s power rests on the fact that they can charge full retail price for copies of Windows to manufacturers who don’t toe the line. In the highly competitive computer market, this is a powerful threat.
When ASUS starting offering the eeePC with Linux only installed, Microsoft had a fit and pulled their leash hard, with the result that now eeePC buyers (like me) are forced to buy a nonrefundable copy of Windows (which I immediately erased, and then installed Linux). This is the well-known “Microsoft tax.” Why can’t consumers who don’t want Windows have to pay for it?
Of course, there is the whole issue of abusing patents. The way Microsoft extracts royalties for unnamed patents that are supposed to be in Android is simply outrageous. Why aren’t the antitrust enforcers concerned about that?
Edited 2012-07-19 00:50 UTC
Reasons are partially historic. The famous antitrust case against MS was focused on the browser, and while OS bundling was mentioned, and MS even disclosed the fact that they influence OEMs to do this bundling, nothing was ever done about it. I always wondered why, but couldn’t really figure it out.
Edited 2012-07-19 00:54 UTC
Might want to check your history a little better friend. The Linux EEE PC did not disappear because “MSFT pulled on the chain” but because the company went out of business that was supplying the version they were using and Asus didn’t want to build their own distro, not to mention that the tab UI that the EEE was using was proprietary and owned by the company in question, which was Xandros BTW.
Oh and just FYI but the “Windows tax” is in actually a “Windows tax break” because you are taking a machine which OEMs like Asus are paid to put trialware on and then wiping. Have you contacted Asus about writing them a check for the cost difference between what the system would have cost without trialware and what it cost with? didn’t think so, but its pretty common knowledge that thanks to companies like Symantec paying to have Norton trial junk installed that Win 7 Start and HP don’t cost the OEMs anything, in fact that make money per unit which they use to lower the cost of the system.
They are not, browsers are just something visible that the public understands and can keep track of, everything you remember evidently… but the other issues you raised (AND MUCH MORE) were and are looked at, they (and not the browsers) were often the subject of heavy fines.
Just go through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_c… for a start, would you?
MS licensing terms vs other OS were also looked at (also around the US case), MS doesn’t do that any more and they were under a watchful eye.
(but let’s be honest, hardly anybody even wants dual-boot)
Unless this is about shouting things out, in a happy ~OSS circle-jerk, without any basis in facts…
Edited 2012-07-26 00:08 UTC
It looks like someone told them in a public forum they had a problem with the browser choice window back in March, 2011 and Microsoft did nothing to fix the problem:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229318/Microsoft_ignored_ti…
Failing to do due diligence out in the open is going to really piss off the commissioners I suspect. Microsoft can’t say it was a bug, because they had been told about the problem 16 months ago and Microsoft did nothing about it!!!!!
like maybe trying to keep its members from going bankrupt and dragging the rest of the lot down with them. Going after Microsoft because they don’t like your web browser, is akin to fiddling while Rome is burning…..or in their case, Greece. It’s nothing but political sleight of hand for the 20 people in Europe that actually care about what browser they’re using while watching porn.
Microsoft doesn’t give two flying rat’s a$$es what Europe thinks of their business practices. They’ll be found “guilty” by the EU High-Council of all Things Anti-American. Be forced to pay a meaningless fine that will go to bail out some Greek official’s coke dealer. And then just release a patch for Windows 8 to allow the 14 angry Euro-hippies to uninstall the evil IE, and install some other me-too browser like Opera.
Putting aside the slightly conspiracy theorist nature of that post, Im inclined to agree. As a citizen of the UK, I believe I speak for most of us brits when I say that we too are tired of the EU sticking its nose into every little thing that really doesnt concern them, while ignoring or glossing over the fact that an increasing number of influential EU member states are on the verge of bankruptcy and the Euro currency is losing value by the day. While Im not one to defend large corporations, least of all Microsoft, I am getting tired of the beurocratic nonsense that is the EU getting involved in something that nobody but their 3 members is concerned about. And while Im on the subject of corporations, Apple need to quit being little girls and back off of Samsung and Google too and deal with the fact that Android is no longer the inferior new kid on the block, but a serious and quite impressive contender for the mobile space. And thats from an Apple fan.
Yes, your own nanny state government already does that enough, right?
Precisely
But we arent the only ones it would seem. More and more regulations are being passed now in the US that seem to be designed to do nothing more than protect stupid people from themselves. Nanny states are the in thing right now 
I have a libertarian streak too, but sometimes laws SHOULD be passed to protect people from themselves. I live in the US, and remember when my state passed the mandatory seatbelt law, and later passed the mandatory helmet law for motorcycles.
I remember that before the seatbelt law was passed, nobody wore seatbelts. None of my family did, none of our acquaintances did, nobody did (except for and extreme few, which were actually mocked for it. :p) After the seatbelt law was passed, within about a year, everyone was wearing seatbelts. And health care costs dropped significantly.
As for the motorcycle helmet law, again practices changed, as after the law was passed, every motorcyclist wore helmets, whereas before that only half did. I won’t say that health care costs dropped that much, since 1.) only a small percentage of folks ride motorcycles so overall healthcare costs wouldn’t be affected that much, and 2.) before the seatbelt law was passed, motorcycle accidents typically resulted in death, so it could be that healthcare costs actually increased since more folks live through their injuries and are treated for those injuries. But certainly the number of motorcycle deaths significantly decreased.
A loss of human life still costs in grander picture, ultimately that life not contributing to GDP and such (while already using up large part of lifetime costs – I imagine virtually all motorcycle fatalities are after most of education or early-life healthcare)
Yet, somehow, places popularly disparaged as “nanny states” are generally the nicest to live in…
The overall idea with forming govs is to protect the interests of their people. And you can’t possibly follow even 1% of the issues which form your comfy modern life – so does that mean the whole infrastructure or complex regulated societal interdependencies are there to protect you from… the stupid you?
(BTW, a place being reasonably comfy is more or less a requirement for effective system of education – less stupid)
And WRT “ignoring or glossing over the fact that an increasing number of influential EU member states are on the verge of bankruptcy” from your post just above …ignoring? Where have you been? (plus, perhaps the main underlying reason for the mess is that there’s a supposedly central European financial institution, tasked with trying to act as one, but which wasn’t actually granted with the usual regulatory powers of a central bank – because too many member states were “tired of the EU sticking its nose into every little thing that really doesnt concern them”)
This might be a shock to you, but large conglomerates of people can spread their focus, to effectively address many issues at once (and of very different severities) – that’s even kinda the whole point behind systems of governance.
It’s simple, the EU doesn’t want to tackle the real problem, the one of DRM that prevents sideloading of apps, because DRM is supposed to prevent piracy or something. Aka, the EU knows that if they start investigating Apple’s app store policies in iOS and Microsoft’s app store in WinRT regarding the sideloading of apps, then they will have to also investigate Sony’s policies regarding sideloading on the PS3, as well as the similar policies in the Wii and the Xbox360. After that, they ‘ll have to investigate the licensing of DVD-Video and Bluray-Movie keys (which require the manufacturer to sign a contract that mandates region lockout, HDCP/CGMS-A, copy restrictions etc). And this is something they don’t want.
So, they will focus in the silly browser issue, in order to pretend they are doing something about MS’s monopoly, while avoiding to solve the real problem.
There is a huge conflict of interest there. DRM is responsible for many monopolies and unfair business practices, and at the same time some countries (USA, Germany) have laws that PROTECT DRM.
Edited 2012-07-19 09:40 UTC
I agree with Thom’s sentiment that in terms of an anti competitive investigation, this is focusing on browsers (in Win8/WinRT) other than IE10 potentially not having access to ‘special APIs’ allowing greater, or smoother or more integrated operation than their platform-native competitor…
why do browsers get this special attention..??
I mean really!!? why, if the EU Commission (or the US DOJ or Federal trade commision etc) are SO INTERESTED in allowing WE THE PEOPLE our fair choice of internet browsers on our devices …with NATIVE APP(OS manufacturers-own-apps just to be explicit) API access equitability
why doesn’t this equate to any and all apps? full stop. If we wish to turn off absolutely any vendor supplied ‘protections’:
antivirus protections, boot protections, software run or software install protections, that ought be OUR CHOICE…….completely.
And same or similarly goes for software API access really (i think).
Certainly if there is any OS-vendor application or exposed feature shown to the user (i understand that some ‘behind-the-scenes’ functions or processes might have a need to utilise APIs that could or should remain private ..or rather not need to be publicised or documented at least.
EDITED (1 of)spelling error.
Edited 2012-07-19 13:27 UTC
mistersoft,
“why doesn’t this equate to any and all apps? full stop.”
I agree, it’s very arbitrary to force ms to have competing browsers and give them a pass on your other examples. The harm cause to market competition applies equally well to other software.
My guess is that they are enforcing previous lawsuits and do not wish to broaden the scope even though the exact same principals are at stake with all software.
Nobody cared about the browser choice screen last time, can the EU just drop it.
90% of EU users still use IE so what is the big deal. If you don’t want MS then load a different OS.
Very few EU countries have IE as their top browser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_by_most_used_web_browse… – also, most of them not very populous, and some on the verge of changing colour to green (like quite a few blue countries already did worldwide, to green or orange, in the few weeks since that map revision)
Really curious how you came up with 90% for IE …oh wait, crazy jefro, NVM, carry on.