Microsoft Fined £484M

[BMWBen]

rxtx said:

BMWBen said:

1. Don't go sticking "purely" in there. It wasn't there before. Solaris, Nextstep... I'd like to point out that windows isn't designed "purely" for desktops either.

2. There's no such thing as "just UI issues" when you're talking about an OS for the desktop. One of the main purposes of it is to provide a UI. That is why linux on the desktop has failed, because it's not part of the core OS so there's fragmentation, complexity, and a generally inconsistent and crap user experience.

As you so condescendingly put it in bullet points:

1. I will stick purely in there as I see fit because that's what you were talking about - I see you came up with nothing despite mentioning it. I see grumbled didn't answer my questions either, just went in with an insult. Solaris and NextStep were workstation operating systems, NextStep was great for C++ dev. Solaris was great for massively multi-user stuff despite its Slowlaris nickname. Windows has many variants, some of which are workstations OSes, like NT was.

2. There is such a thing as UI issues. The OS has nothing to do with the UI but you seem to have trouble with that. Fragmentation, as keeps being mentioned, only exists because of the many different UIs available on Linux. Stick to one and you won't have much of a problem. Windows fixes you to one UI, some think it's good, I think that's bad, I like a choice - or to not have one at all. I agree the UI on Linux desktop is poor, that's why I said it needs someone that knows what they're doing. I also agree it is not a Windows replacement, I've said as much.

3. Linux has failed on the desktop not because it is crap as you so eloquently put it, but because it doesn't have the financial backing that MS have put into Windows. There are lots of things you can't do with Linux which you can with Windows, especially when it comes to LAN management. There are also lots of things you can do with Linux you can't do with windows. YMMV. Mine varies so much it doesn't matter what I use, I can make VMS do what I want.

4. I'm out of this thread, I've already been insulted just because I asked a question. You enjoy yourselves.

Wow, you've really taken this personally! Fundamentally there's no such thing as a "workstation OS" that's why they don't exist any more, and that's why I lump them in there with the desktop. If nextstep was so great for C++ dev, why isn't anyone using it? Do you see my point?

The rest of the world doesn't agree that UI choice is a good thing. This is clearly demonstrated by the success of the iPhone.

P.S. I wasn't being condescending at all, just ordering my points clearly. Perhaps you should stop identifying too personally with operating systems...

[Carfolio]

BMWBen said:

The rest of the world doesn't agree that UI choice is a good thing. This is clearly demonstrated by the success of the iPhone.

The success of the iPhone is down to something, but I'm not sure you've nailed it.

[happygoron]

Marketing and UI design. They were far from the first to make touchscreen tablets, all they did was expand the size of thier iPhone and had a ready product, audience and marketing strategy. The UI is certinally a large part of the sucess of the iPhone/ipad range though. They made them so easy to use it didn't matter if you were 2 or 82 you could pick one up and be proficient in minutes.

[Derek Smith]

daveydave7 said:

I personally find that browser choice window that pops up after updates or on install quite annoying. Almost as annoying as the bundled crap that comes with laptops especially acer and sony fking vaios. And don't get me started on the sales guys that try to push you to buy Norton/McAfee/Kapersky/ Whatever is flavour of the month and biggest earner at PC World at the time even though your new laptop may have a trial that can be extended that will work out a lot cheaper than the one they are trying to flog.

Clean install is so much easier

Going back to the op post I don't get why a manufacturer has to be punished for including their own product but I am sure I am not as enlightened as other ph'ers.

Do you really not understand? Look up anti-trusty laws and anti competition laws, that's for the USA and the EU.

There is nothing to stop a company obtaining a monopoly from my understanding. There are two main offences - that's for an individual company:

using illegal means to get to that monopoly stater, and

using the monopoly to make excessive profits.

MS' attempt to dominate the browser market falls into the former. Had the attempt been successful there is little doubt that they would have been guilty of the latter.

For the reason for anti-trust laws, if you don't fully grasp the concept, look at the OS situation. The choice we have on desktop/laptop could not be described as extensive. Furhter there is no incentive to bring down prices or to improve the product over and above that of making more money.

You don't seem to have a problem with lack of choice. Others do.

[grumbledoak]

Derek Smith said:

Do you really not understand? Look up anti-trusty laws and anti competition laws, that's for the USA and the EU.

Obtaining a monopoly is not illegal; it is what every business tries to achieve. Continuing as a monopoly is fine too. It is using a your existing monopoly in one market to your advantage in another that is deemed illegal. This is why Apple can do what they do- they are not seen as having an existing monopoly, though in truth they have an absolute monopoly within their market.

Windows had plenty of competition on the desktop (or 'Workstation', if you wanted to pay someone double) in the form of Unices in the past; they failed in the market place - not good enough individually to win and too fragmented technically to form a single competing platform. The various Linux distributions are also a form of competition on the desktop now, but are doing the same.

All of this is pretty much off topic though, as the fine was a shakedown by the EU prompted by Microsoft's competitors - Opera, who had their chance pre IE5 but failed to make it stick, and Google, who are doing well enough with Chrome now to disprove these anti-competitive charges on their own.

[Derek Smith]

grumbledoak said:

Obtaining a monopoly is not illegal; it is what every business tries to achieve. Continuing as a monopoly is fine too. It is using a your existing monopoly in one market to your advantage in another that is deemed illegal. This is why Apple can do what they do- they are not seen as having an existing monopoly, though in truth they have an absolute monopoly within their market.

Windows had plenty of competition on the desktop (or 'Workstation', if you wanted to pay someone double) in the form of Unices in the past; they failed in the market place - not good enough individually to win and too fragmented technically to form a single competing platform. The various Linux distributions are also a form of competition on the desktop now, but are doing the same.

All of this is pretty much off topic though, as the fine was a shakedown by the EU prompted by Microsoft's competitors - Opera, who had their chance pre IE5 but failed to make it stick, and Google, who are doing well enough with Chrome now to disprove these anti-competitive charges on their own.

MS supply of OS is a monopoly under the legal definition, which is the only one that matters. They were told to do something and they failed to comply. £484m is not a shakedown of MS. Many might feel that MS had calculated their likely advantages by bundling IR and then went for it.

If MS had been European or indeed based in any country other than the USA the fine, or rather continual fines, would have been well over £484m.

The way Apple and MS set up their businesses are very different and their situations are not comparable.

MS should be forced to open the codes on Windows to allow others to compete. It is what would have happened if it had been British.

[daveydave7]

Derek Smith said:

Do you really not understand? Look up anti-trusty laws and anti competition laws, that's for the USA and the EU.

There is nothing to stop a company obtaining a monopoly from my understanding. There are two main offences - that's for an individual company:

using illegal means to get to that monopoly stater, and

using the monopoly to make excessive profits.

MS' attempt to dominate the browser market falls into the former. Had the attempt been successful there is little doubt that they would have been guilty of the latter.

For the reason for anti-trust laws, if you don't fully grasp the concept, look at the OS situation. The choice we have on desktop/laptop could not be described as extensive. Furhter there is no incentive to bring down prices or to improve the product over and above that of making more money.

You don't seem to have a problem with lack of choice. Others do.

I have considered your reply and still don't think it is an issue
If people want to download other browsers they can I believe by googling err browsers therefore where is the lack of choice
I simply don't share your viewpoint and am entitled not to

[0000]

grumbledoak said:

All of this is pretty much off topic though, as the fine was a shakedown by the EU prompted by Microsoft's competitors - Opera, who had their chance pre IE5 but failed to make it stick, and Google, who are doing well enough with Chrome now to disprove these anti-competitive charges on their own.

I can't agree that Opera failing while Microsoft behaving in a way that's resulted in their anti-competitive behaviour being forced to change and fined and Chrome having success years after Microsoft were first forced to change their behaviour disproves anti-competitive behaviour from Microsoft. If anything it looks like the complete opposite.

[0000]

daveydave7 said:

I have considered your reply and still don't think it is an issue
If people want to download other browsers they can I believe by googling err browsers therefore where is the lack of choice
I simply don't share your viewpoint and am entitled not to

They can now, yes. It wouldn't have done them much good if Microsoft had continued down the path they were taking.

[daveydave7]

0000 said:

They can now, yes. It wouldn't have done them much good if Microsoft had continued down the path they were taking.

You could/ can on xp which is well before these rulings ?

[0000]

Indeed.

[BMWBen]

Carfolio said:

BMWBen said:

The rest of the world doesn't agree that UI choice is a good thing. This is clearly demonstrated by the success of the iPhone.

The success of the iPhone is down to something, but I'm not sure you've nailed it.

The success of the iPhone is of course down to many things, but I would argue that was a quite important one. The geek view of "why can't I move that button over there" just doesn't appeal to normal people, who just want the thing to damn well work in a consistent way.

[rxtx]

BMWBen said:

Wow, you've really taken this personally!

I haven't. You're an armchair expert and I've been doing this for decades. You could have learnt something but prefer to live in ignorance. Big shrug, makes no difference to me.

[emicen]

Sonic said:

Actually march 2013 browser stats show IE (all versions combined) at 29.82%, below 30% of the market for the first time, and below Google Chrome at 37.11%. Firefox has 21.34%. http://www.sitepoint.com/browser-trends-march-2013...

This genuinely astonishes me. I downloaded a wad of browsers a while back whilst embarking on the folly of trying to code my own website to test if it worked on all of them.

Chrome is utterly dire, I'd go as far as saying I detest it and dont know anyone who actually likes or uses it. Whats supposed to be so good about it?

[daveydave7]

emicen said:

This genuinely astonishes me. I downloaded a wad of browsers a while back whilst embarking on the folly of trying to code my own website to test if it worked on all of them.

Chrome is utterly dire, I'd go as far as saying I detest it and dont know anyone who actually likes or uses it. Whats supposed to be so good about it?

Dunno but if you can change a chromebook to run windows you get yourself a cheap laptop. I dunno anyone who can though

[0000]

emicen said:

This genuinely astonishes me. I downloaded a wad of browsers a while back whilst embarking on the folly of trying to code my own website to test if it worked on all of them.

Chrome is utterly dire, I'd go as far as saying I detest it and dont know anyone who actually likes or uses it. Whats supposed to be so good about it?

Fast, a UI efficient with screen space, the best development tools there are. I'm not aware of a better browser.

Everyone in the company I contract with has free choice of browser. I don't know anyone that doesn't use it.

[Hooli]

emicen said:

Sonic said:

Actually march 2013 browser stats show IE (all versions combined) at 29.82%, below 30% of the market for the first time, and below Google Chrome at 37.11%. Firefox has 21.34%. http://www.sitepoint.com/browser-trends-march-2013...

This genuinely astonishes me. I downloaded a wad of browsers a while back whilst embarking on the folly of trying to code my own website to test if it worked on all of them.

Chrome is utterly dire, I'd go as far as saying I detest it and dont know anyone who actually likes or uses it. Whats supposed to be so good about it?

Mrs Hooli uses it & likes it. I've no idea why, it's crap, annoying & pisses me off.

[emicen]

0000 said:

emicen said:

This genuinely astonishes me. I downloaded a wad of browsers a while back whilst embarking on the folly of trying to code my own website to test if it worked on all of them.

Chrome is utterly dire, I'd go as far as saying I detest it and dont know anyone who actually likes or uses it. Whats supposed to be so good about it?

Fast, a UI efficient with screen space, the best development tools there are. I'm not aware of a better browser.

Everyone in the company I contract with has free choice of browser. I don't know anyone that doesn't use it.

Loads slower than firefox ime, marginal increase in viewing area over firefox, no need for development tools.

Maybe I've got a dud copy.

[0000]

emicen said:

Loads slower than firefox ime

You're doing it wrong. Google Firefox vs. Chrome performance or similar; it's hard work finding reference to Firefox being faster, despite some significant and much needed performance improvements to it in very recent releases.

[grumbledoak]

0000 said:

that's resulted in their anti-competitive behaviour being forced to change

(Oops, missed this)

Are you sure anything changed? The fine is for SP1 removing the Browser Choice annoyance (fair enough, that is a violation of the ruling) but IE is still bundled with Windows. It seems to me that fact hasn't changed or done Chrome any harm.