Microsoft Faces $618m Fine In Eu Case

[lynx]

Let me put this a different way.

I don't like WMP, I don't think it is a particularly good or efficient product. But it is included as a "free" add-on (I also don't believe in a "Free Lunch").

By including this product with the OS, other products are less likely to be installed (whether free or not) by consumers, often simply because of their own ignorance and idleness.

Consequently the viability and success of these other companies is adversely affected, even though they may have superior products. If these companies are indirectly prevented from distributing their products by Microsoft's actions it is detrimental to the company.

So I am harmed because I am unable to get hold of a superior product because Microsoft's actions have driven the company producing it out of business, or that insufficient progress is being made because of reduced investment caused by loss of sales.

It doesn't matter a damn where the company is based or where you are based, anti-competitive actions are bad for ALL consumers.

I'll give you a practical example where this has actually happened.

Networking used to be sold as an add-on to Microsoft products. There were also dozens of alternative networking products which could be used instead, many of them better than Microsoft's offerings (for example fewer security holes). Then Microsoft started adding networking as part of the "standard package". The result is that most of the alternative networking products have disappeared. But Microsoft's offerings are still full of security holes.

This is an example of how YOU are being harmed by these practices.

[clocker]

Originally posted by lynx@11 May 2004 - 19:23
Let me put this a different way.

I don't like WMP, I don't think it is a particularly good or efficient product. But it is included as a "free" add-on (I also don't believe in a "Free Lunch").

By including this product with the OS, other products are less likely to be installed (whether free or not) by consumers, often simply because of their own ignorance and idleness.

Consequently the viability and success of these other companies is adversely affected, even though they may have superior products. If these companies are indirectly prevented from distributing their products by Microsoft's actions it is detrimental to the company.

Isn't this simply a classic example of capitalism at work?
How difficult was it for you to find and install the (presumptively) superior product created by your mythical little guy?
How much did you pay for it?

I'm sorry, I still don't get it.

When a neighbor of mine recently purchased a new PC she was thrilled to death that Windows was as inclusive as it is.
Plug and play...turn it on and GO!
Had she wanted to build her own OS from scratch she could have installed Linux and chosen every component separately.
But that's not what she wanted and MS was selling exactly what she wanted to buy.
Where is the "damaged consumer" in this transaction?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by lynx@11 May 2004 - 22:23
Let me put this a different way.

I don't like WMP, I don't think it is a particularly good or efficient product. But it is included as a "free" add-on (I also don't believe in a "Free Lunch").

By including this product with the OS, other products are less likely to be installed (whether free or not) by consumers, often simply because of their own ignorance and idleness.

Consequently the viability and success of these other companies is adversely affected, even though they may have superior products. If these companies are indirectly prevented from distributing their products by Microsoft's actions it is detrimental to the company.

So I am harmed because I am unable to get hold of a superior product because Microsoft's actions have driven the company producing it out of business, or that insufficient progress is being made because of reduced investment caused by loss of sales.

It doesn't matter a damn where the company is based or where you are based, anti-competitive actions are bad for ALL consumers.

I'll give you a practical example where this has actually happened.

Networking used to be sold as an add-on to Microsoft products. There were also dozens of alternative networking products which could be used instead, many of them better than Microsoft's offerings (for example fewer security holes). Then Microsoft started adding networking as part of the "standard package". The result is that most of the alternative networking products have disappeared. But Microsoft's offerings are still full of security holes.

This is an example of how YOU are being harmed by these practices.

Still flawed.

By what you say.

Windows should be a shell and nothing more.

I should buy a separate uninstaller, media player, picture viewer, etc.

I am not harmed. If the consumer doesn't buy this superior add-on and settles for the free inferior product that's the fault of the consumer.

Microsoft did not force you to NOT buy an add-on.

Look at the market now.

I remember when WordPerfect was the standard in word processing now it's MS Word. It is not bundled with Windows.

If we want a different product, we buy it.

[leftism]

Originally posted by clocker
Isn't this simply a classic example of capitalism at work?
How difficult was it for you to find and install the (presumptively) superior product created by your mythical little guy?
How much did you pay for it?

I'm sorry, I still don't get it.

When a neighbor of mine recently purchased a new PC she was thrilled to death that Windows was as inclusive as it is.
Plug and play...turn it on and GO!
Had she wanted to build her own OS from scratch she could have installed Linux and chosen every component separately.
But that's not what she wanted and MS was selling exactly what she wanted to buy.
Where is the "damaged consumer" in this transaction?

It sounds like your arguing that monopolies are good for consumers....

What if a more computer literate neighbour of mine wants to buy Windows without IE and WMP at a cheaper price and use a free open source media player and browser instead? (btw VLC and firefox are examples of such alternatives and imho are far superior to their M$ counterparts)

Why should consumers have to pay extra for products they're never going to use? And make no mistake about it, customers are paying extra. M$ are not spending millions on development costs for IE and WMP just to give them away for free.

This is what happens when you have a monopoly. The customers choice is severely limited and the company in question can charge whatever price they feel like. It's hard to see the damage monopolies do until they are broken up and a better situation arises. This has happened in many industries over the years. e.g I would not be getting free local calls if BT still had a monopoly in the UK.

The EU isn't demanding M$ remove WMP from all versions of Windows, they just want them to offer a version that doesn't include WMP.

Is it really so unreasonable to demand that consumers be offered a choice?

[clocker]

Originally posted by leftism@11 May 2004 - 21:30


It sounds like your arguing that monopolies are good for consumers....

What if a more computer literate neighbour of mine wants to buy Windows without IE and WMP at a cheaper price and use a free open source media player and browser instead? (btw VLC and firefox are examples of such alternatives and imho are far superior to their M$ counterparts)

What if my neighbor wants to buy a Ferrari without the 12 cylinder engine?
Ooopsie, can't do it.

Gee, let's fine Ferari since they clearly are denying him the God-given right to buy the exact product that he wants.
In fact, their insistence on supplying their cars complete with engine has probably stifled the growth of some small engine producer (Sterling?) and thus, denied all of us the fruits of the presumptively superior technology.

Now I am pissed.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by clocker+12 May 2004 - 02:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 12 May 2004 - 02:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-leftism@11 May 2004 - 21:30


It sounds like your arguing that monopolies are good for consumers....

What if a more computer literate neighbour of mine wants to buy Windows without IE and WMP at a cheaper price and use a free open source media player and browser instead? (btw VLC and firefox are examples of such alternatives and imho are far superior to their M&#036; counterparts)

What if my neighbor wants to buy a Ferrari without the 12 cylinder engine?
Ooopsie, can&#39;t do it.

Gee, let&#39;s fine Ferari since they clearly are denying him the God-given right to buy the exact product that he wants.
In fact, their insistence on supplying their cars complete with engine has probably stifled the growth of some small engine producer (Sterling?) and thus, denied all of us the fruits of the presumptively superior technology.

Now I am pissed. [/b][/quote]
Good one.

Better yet

Let&#39;s say Windows is &#036;90

2 years from now a newer version is ....&#036;90...but has 2 new features

2 years from then it&#39;s....&#036;90....but has 4 more new features.

Anyway I don&#39;t get how MS has stopped another company from making another OS.

It&#39;s not MS&#39;s fault OS/Warp didn&#39;t take off. The OS sucked ass.

There&#39;s also Apple computer.

The fact is the consumer likes Windows and has made it popular. Make the "switch" to Apple then if you don&#39;t like Windows.

"I hate Microsoft"

but tomorrow "I just got this great game for my PC that I can&#39;t wait play"

[lynx]

To use the networking example again, this goes back to the time when most buyers were corporate users.

The networking product was bundled in with the OS. What corporate buyer was going to go to the board and tell them "We&#39;ve got networking with this product but I suggest we ignore what we&#39;ve had to spend on that and go out an buy a new one. And if you could suggest where I look for a new job that would be useful".

Networking didn&#39;t need to be part of the OS. Integrating it so closely has been the cause of most of the worst security breaches. It is not like the Ferrari engine, more like bundling a garage in with the car. It doesn&#39;t match your home, it is even out of character with the locality and it breaks all the planning laws, but nobody is doing anything about that and, what the heck, it is "free".

I think you&#39;ve probably noticed this, many pc&#39;s come with pre-installed software. It often isn&#39;t all Microsoft software, which means it had to be installed separately. The big pc vendors don&#39;t mind, they do it once (or twice to make sure they&#39;ve got it right) then they clone the hard drive. But there&#39;s a media player included with the windows price, do you really think they are going to buy another player, at their own cost, just to give it away? Once again, the corporate buyer who suggested that would very quickly be looking for a new job. And most of the public don&#39;t realise what a crappy product WMP is (and IE for that matter) so they go along with it.

That&#39;s like buying the Ferrari with the garage. You CAN open the garage doors and drive outside, but there are no instructions on how to do it, and anyway the garage is now tightly bolted on, and it keeps some the rain off your Ferrari. Most people don&#39;t realise they should be able to buy the Ferrari on it&#39;s own, but they are uninformed, and they are still being told that their Ferrari can do 0-60 in 5 seconds. Now fitted with Microsoft Stopwatch for improved performance, 0-60 in under 1 second&#33;&#33;&#33;

Built in Firewall? Don&#39;t make me laugh, but you can bet that&#39;s the next big push. At the moment it&#39;s a complete POS, but Microsoft will improve it slightly so that it nearly works, then push it as the best thing since sliced bread. What do you suppose will happen to the other Firewall suppliers.

And the &#036;90 OS?
Most pc&#39;s have got an OS thrown in. The people who bought the pc&#39;s paid &#036;90 for it, although they don&#39;t realise it because it was an inclusive price.

Now they want a new pc because their old one is out of date. So they get one, and pay &#036;90 for a new OS. And this one has 2 "free" extra features. But of course they already had a perfectly good OS, so they&#39;ve just paid &#036;90 for the 2 extra features. When you look at it in those terms, all of a sudden it isn&#39;t such a good deal.

Nobody so far has said Windows isn&#39;t a good product. But IE is mediocre and WMP is a POS. I don&#39;t use WMP at all, and I only use IE when I have to because some Microsoft brainwashed idiot has designed their website to be compatible with IE and nothing else. So I have no choice but to have IE installed, and I understand the problems trying to remove WMP are worse than leaving it sitting unused, even though it probably leaves gaping security holes and degrades the performance of my pc just by being installed.

Nobody want&#39;s to stop Microsoft selling any of these products, they just want them to do it FAIRLY.

[clocker]

Lynx,
To use your networking example...
Why was the MS OS purchased in the first place if a critical component (the networking software) was known to be flawed or not suitable for the corporation&#39;s needs?
Sounds like a failure by the IT department rather than MS to me.

Networking didn&#39;t need to be part of the OS. Integrating it so closely has been the cause of most of the worst security breaches. It is not like the Ferrari engine, more like bundling a garage in with the car. It doesn&#39;t match your home, it is even out of character with the locality and it breaks all the planning laws, but nobody is doing anything about that and, what the heck, it is "free".

So don&#39;t buy it.
It&#39;s hardly as though they are hiding the fact that the garage is included...Microsoft in fact, trumpets the inclusion of the features you so roundly despise in all their advertising.

And the &#036;90 OS?
Most pc&#39;s have got an OS thrown in. The people who bought the pc&#39;s paid &#036;90 for it, although they don&#39;t realise it because it was an inclusive price.

So what?
Most people who buy Porches don&#39;t realize the cost of an oil filter till it comes time to replace it cause it is "bundled" into the purchase price.
Are you suggesting that every device we buy should be broken into component parts and the consumer gets to pick and choose his "dream machine" from a list of pieces?
Well, in fact that is possible...but not on a mass produced scale. Such a manufacturing technique would price the both of us right out of the market.

Nobody want&#39;s to stop Microsoft selling any of these products, they just want them to do it FAIRLY.

Define "fairly".
To me it would seem that you expect MS to offer their product with the caveat that many of the components are flawed and unusable.
I&#39;m sure that the boys in Redmond would disagree.
MS does the best it can and then offers the product for sale.
The scale of their success would indicate that their efforts have met with consumer approval.
If you get your new PC home and then discover that you don&#39;t like it, who&#39;s fault is that?
"Caveat emptor" applies to computers just as it does to any consumer product, yet this punitive fine seems to single out a single manufacturer for violating some nebulous consumer protection law not applied to other companies.
Who else is getting punished for continually upgrading their product and trying to make it more inclusive?
Usually this is seen as boon to the consumer, not a bane.

[leftism]

Originally posted by clocker
What if my neighbor wants to buy a Ferrari without the 12 cylinder engine?
Ooopsie, can&#39;t do it.

Gee, let&#39;s fine Ferari since they clearly are denying him the God-given right to buy the exact product that he wants.
In fact, their insistence on supplying their cars complete with engine has probably stifled the growth of some small engine producer (Sterling?) and thus, denied all of us the fruits of the presumptively superior technology.

Now I am pissed.

Don&#39;t be so facetious clocker.

Do Ferrari have a monopoly? No they don&#39;t.

If I don&#39;t buy a Ferrari does that mean I can&#39;t drive on most of the roads? No it doesn&#39;t.

Your analogy is fundamentally flawed.

I have to admit that I&#39;m surprised the anti-European sentiment outweighs the fundamental economic theory that monopolies are bad for consumers.

Be honest, if M&#036; were a European company neither you or Busyman would be making the same argument. Your opinion on this subject has got nothing to do with principle or economics, it&#39;s got more to do with that strange brand of "patriotism" you guys are so fond of.

[clocker]

Originally posted by leftism@12 May 2004 - 07:18


I have to admit that I&#39;m surprised the anti-European sentiment outweighs the fundamental economic theory that monopolies are bad for consumers.

Be honest, if M&#036; were a European company neither you or Busyman would be making the same argument. Your opinion on this subject has got nothing to do with principle or economics, it&#39;s got more to do with that strange brand of "patriotism" you guys are so fond of.

Leftism,
What the hell are you on about?
Not once in my posts have I said the first thing about this being some sort of uniquely European phenomonon.
The fact that this fine was imposed by the EU is completely irrelevant.

Please don&#39;t muddy the waters here by trying to invent some pro-US aspect in my argument...it simply doesn&#39;t exist.