RSSEU Court: Microsoft Abused Power
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published September 17, 2007, 9:20 AM
The European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg has ruled against Microsoft in its appeal of a March 2004 finding of the European Commission. In so doing, the Court upholds the EC's finding that Microsoft abused its dominant market position in Europe, first by failing to supply access to its protocols for enabling interoperability with its communications software in Windows and Windows Server, and second by bundling its Media Player with Windows XP.
"The Court considers that the Commission was correct to conclude that the work group server operating systems of Microsoft's competitors must be able to interoperate with Windows domain architecture on an equal footing with Windows operating systems if they are to be capable of being marketed viably," reads a press release issued by the Luxembourg court this morning. "The absence of such interoperability has the effect of reinforcing Microsoft's competitive position on the market and creates a risk that competition will be eliminated."
The original conduct which earned Microsoft the rebuke of the Court took place in 1998, when Sun Microsystems sought enough information from Microsoft on its server and communications protocols to enable interoperability with Sun's own server software, which we now know as Solaris. As the Court saw it, Microsoft had argued that there was actually enough information about Windows in the public domain for Sun to make a fairly interoperable system, and that the degree of interoperability Sun was pleading for would effectively make its server "mimic" Windows, or essentially be Windows by another name.
In its decision (not the press release, but the decision itself), the Court of First Instance rejected that argument flatly. "The way in which Microsoft interprets the degree of interoperability required by the Commission and, accordingly, the scope of the information referred to by the contested decision is incorrect," the decision reads.
In its upholding of the EC decision on Media Player, the Court's press release states, "The Court finds that the Commission clearly demonstrated in the contested decision that the fact that Microsoft offered OEMs only the version of Windows bundled with Windows Media Player had the inevitable consequence of affecting relations on the market between Microsoft, OEMs and suppliers of third-party media players by appreciably altering the balance of competition in favour of Microsoft and to the detriment of the other operators."
So the Court has upheld the basic assertions of the EC's 2004 ruling and its 2005 Statement of Objections charging Microsoft with non-compliance with that ruling. It upholds the fine against Microsoft of 497 million Euro. However - in an extremely important part of the finding - the Court annulled one portion of the EC's ruling that forces Microsoft to pay the cost of establishing an independent monitoring trustee to keep tabs on its future behavior.
As the Court's press release summarizes it, "The Court finds that the Commission has no authority to compel Microsoft to grant to a monitoring trustee powers which the Commission itself is not authorized to confer on a third party...The Court considers that the Commission exceeds its powers in so far as it makes Microsoft responsible for all the costs associated with the monitoring trustee."
In a hastily convened press conference this morning, Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith sounded a conciliatory tone. "It's clearly very important to us as a company that we comply with our obligations under European law. We'll study this decision carefully, and if there are additional steps that we need to take in order to comply with it, we will take them. It will take us a little bit of time, at least over the next few hours, to read the decision carefully, but certainly that is one of our strongest convictions as we go forward.
"I would note that a lot has changed since this case started in 1998. The world has changed, the industry has changed, and our company has changed...We've sought to be open and transparent, and we've sought to strengthen our ties with the rest of our industry. Indeed, it's notable that just last week we announced a new agreement with Sun Microsystems, and the week before that we announced a new agreement with Novell, two of the companies that started out on the other side of this case almost nine years ago."
For more: Inside the EU Court's Ruling: Microsoft's Abuse of Dominance
I can't help but laugh at the anti-EU comments.
We had the balls to do what the US couldn't do. We slapped a massive fine on Microsoft and made it clear that if Microsoft is going to trade inside our borders, they will follow our laws. If not, they can pull out of the EU and lose billions in revenue when we switch to Linux. Simple as that.
Who'd have thought that Microsoft would have to follow our laws if they want to sell us their products?
Score: 0
|Its not that they are not forced to use them its that they can not be removed if the user wants it to be. and them simply being there in some cases is part of the security problems in windows to begin with...
I use firefox happily, but I still have IE on my machine and as such am vulnerable if I do not update it continually. Right? yep very true...
Same is true of media player. I use a very old classic emulation of media player that plays real and quicktime files as well as the normal WMV and mp3 and avi ect..., and I use VLC mediaplayer. all are fine products, but can I remove media player with the urge and DRM crap in it? Nope... its still there and it bugs the hell out of me that if I forcefully remove it it causes my OS to go all apes***...
That's is the problem... Windows should be the OS and nothing else.. if they want to give away all that other crap as an option fine... just allow us to uninstall it if we do not want it, or make it that we have to go get it like it used to be for IE back in the netscape days....
Score: 0
|The old classic version of media player is no longer being updated and has security holes in it just for your information.
Score: 0
|you guys who think that the EU is right in this judgment are full of crap. If its wrong for Microsoft to have IE and Media player in their OS's (Which people are not forced to use)
than...
the UK Iphone should not come bundled with Itunes and Safari and its monopolizing calender feature
Apple computers should be able to work with other OS WITHOUT the need for applebootcamp
Apple should be stripped of Safari and it's search function and its Ilife software suite
UK cell phones should be able to work with American and worldwide cell phone service providers.
the reason why the EU euro is so strong is because they do some criminal BS like this too companies that have money.
Score: 0
|What you don't understand is that people buy a Mac or an iPhone because of the software. Sony, HP, Dell, and the computer shop on the corner also want to decide what software to sell with their computers.
Microsoft doesn't sell computers, if they did then they could decide what software to pre-install.
Score: 0
|If that's the case, then Apple shouldn't lock in their software to use in their over priced hardware. The hardware is same as the one on PC.
Score: 0
|Again, Microsoft does not sell PCs. Apple on the other hand sells proprietary hardware, which gives them the right to include whatever software they choose. If Microsoft made their own PCs and sold them, they would have the right to include whatever software they want. The difference here is that Microsoft "forced" OEMs/retailers to to include their software and therefore gain an advantage in the market. Now if iMacs were manufactured/sold by many different companies and Apple coerced them into bundling certain software in order to gain an advantage over competing products, THEN you would have a point. As it stands, your comparison of Microsoft's behavior to Apple's hardware is very off.
Microsoft isn't in trouble because they included certain software with Windows (like IE and Media Player), but because OEMs/retailers were not allowed to choose what they wanted to bundle. Microsoft gave them no choice. They were not allowed to remove certain programs and replace them with a competing program.
I'm getting really tired of these American idiots constantly whining about the EU making bad decisions regarding Microsoft, without even understanding what the lawsuit is about. I know you're all very proud of Microsoft and all, but do realize that Microsoft is a GLOBAL company. As such, they have to take responsibility for their actions outside the United States. Whether you like the EU's decision is irrelevant. They have the right to rule as they see fit and the power to enforce those rulings. There are a lot of smart people involved (not just lawyers) in making decisions, and a bunch of pimply faced American kids questioning their actions is laughable at best.
Score: 0
|IE is being forced because its integrated into Windows. You cant simply "uninstall" it. Every now and then, IE will get launched on my computer for whatever reason even thought its not the default browser.
Note that i have actually unchecked/uninstalled "Internet Explorer", according to Windows, in "add and remove programs" a long time ago, yet, it doesnt seem to do a thing. IE works just fine, no problems.
IE isnt your average application that you can just "turn off", Microsoft made quite sure about that its being used one way or the other, despite the fact that people might choose otherwise.
I cant quite figure out what makes anyone think that Microsoft DOESNT abuse its powers. Its just another big corporation willing to do what ever it needs to make higher profits, thus happy shareholders and most part keeping the "competition" in check. Competion thats non-existing.
Again, what on earth makes people think otherwise?
Score: 0
|What does being able to uninstall IE have anything to do with this case?
Their objection is that MS is not allowing others to compete, yet FF has a decent marketshare, so you tell me how they are able to compete?
IE is not needed for anything other then updates (a plugin through firefox can eliminate that though) and if you do select add/rem from the programs it does remove IE from all locations in the start menu, and quick launch.
So for all practical purposes its gone. Same with Media player it behaves the same way. So basically the EU makes it seem (this is how I am interpreting it) that they want a blank slate and be able to have an infinite option the user can scroll through and select what they would like to install on their pc. They do have this as someone mention already we call it Linux.
Score: 0
|This could have been decided in the US if the idiots in the Bush Administration had not dropped the case against Microsoft in 2001. Yea, that and "clearing brush" were far more important priorities back then.
For now, Microsoft is stuck shipping two versions of Windows to Europe. The sooner MS gets it in its head that people DO NOT WANT their kludge in their OS, the better off they'll be. Toolie's right on this one — make it a separate package for sale and download and make good cash from it. A lot of people would buy it anyway.
Finally, if you own 1 lousy share of MS stock, ditch it now — it's about as worthless as the completely trashed USDollar.
Score: 0
|"This could have been decided in the US if the idiots in the Bush Administration had not dropped the case against Microsoft in 2001. Yea, that and "clearing brush" were far more important priorities back then."
The case you refer to has nothing to do with the case in the EU. Worse, it has little to do with the administration that was in office at the time. If Gore were President at the time it probably still would've happened.
That strategy of repeating derrogatory statements about those in office over and over again until people start believing it has worked for many, perhaps, but I can still focus on relavent information for that, and am fully capable of making up my own mind about Bush without your help, thank you.
Score: 0
|Are you retarded? DOJ is a separate branch from the Bush administration.
Score: 0
|ROFLMAO!!!!
For now, Microsoft is stuck shipping two versions of Windows to Europe. The sooner MS gets it in its head that people DO NOT WANT their kludge in their OS,
Are you really that braindead as to be completely unaware of the fact that 8no-one* is buying the -N version? Your idea of "the people" seems to include only about, oh... .001% of the population over there.
Comic gold, man. Keep it up. One day you might actually be able to grasp reality.
Score: 0
|The DOJ is a cabinet level department of the Executive branch. Everyone who works there is hired by the president and can be fired by the president.
You will learn that when you finally get to High School civics class.
Score: 0
|"In a hastily convened press conference this morning, Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith sounded a conciliatory tone."
How could they know? Ah, the judgement.
Score: 0
|Personally I think this is the right decision.
I think though that they need to do that same to Apple and stop them bundling iTunes (at least partly because it's s***).
Maybe they can't because iTunes is officially part of iLife which is in theory a seperate suite of programs (it is installed by Apple themselves, but is not part of the OS as such).
Perhaps Microsoft should do this to get round the EU rules?
Score: 0
|Interesting thought.
If they bundled a second CD with the main OS that included IE, Media Player, etc...(as a toned down version of "Plus!", I wonder if that would put an end to this nonsense.
Score: 0
|And it'd make me happy because I wouldn't have to have IE, Media Player etc installed.
It would be a win:win as far as I can see.
Perhaps we should start a movement to persuade Microsoft to do it!
/hopeful
Score: 0
|Windows Live Suite, anyone?
Score: 0
|Yea...can't wait for the day that we have to pay extra for all these "extras" that are SO annoying to you...
Score: 0
|Or something after the installation and you start Windows for the first time: Install IE, Media Player, etc Next > Cancel >
Roughly worked on Win98. And it means people can say no so it's not installed by "default" it requires user interaction.
And as someone in Europe, I think the EU is completely wasting its time with this. I guess all this money might help further line the pockets of all the MEPs who seem to do nothing of worthy note. Fantastic.
Score: 0
|Yes, for they will of course cost more.
It's not like Microsoft want IE to be the leading browser or Media Player to be quite as "popular" as it is now.
They're quite happy to charge people to get these wonderful features on a seperate CD instead of downloading them for free.
It wouldn't save them billions of euros in fines if they implemented it.
/sarcasm
Score: 0
|That might be an interesting idea, for sure. Possibly one version without all the crap in it, for people who have the knowledge and ability to pick and choose what they want. And, you wouldn't be stuck with MS software which is so embedded in the system that you're unable to remove it without breaking everything else. I'd go for that, myself.
Score: 0
|Lets use something like this...
http://www.reuters.com/a...s/idUSL1055133420070910
...as a "point of reference" of something being useless.
Score: 0
|Durrr....
Wow. Get hit on the head much?
Score: 0
|Hah! Cue the MS fanboi's .. good one :-)
What they did wrong is very apparent. Did they do it intentionally? Probably, but who knows...
Pep's have to know that the majority of consumer shoppers do not know about other music and video players... they click on files and links and expect them to work. When prompted for "you need flash to play this file" they click yes, get an hourglass, and the video now works... ask them what the box said they clicked yes on and they'll tell you they don't know, they just clicked yes.
Sooo yes they can download another music/video player but that's hardly the point. The point is they don't know to, they know the one on the computer works just fine.
Take that *one* away and what happens? Suddenly they have to figure out which one to get. Many will choose the easiest one to get, some will take the time to do some research, either by word of mouth or by looking online.
Competitors want this to happen and today it won't, the majority of consumers want what works well enough on their computer and that's about it.
Look around your office, at your parents, at any of your friends who aren't well versed (note: i'm not even saying guru here) in computers... would they know that a few years back there was a rockin' piece of software called WinAMP?
And even if they do see a banner ad, are they willing to trust it with all the talk of viruses, spyware and such or even trust themselves enough to install it without messing up their new computer?
So maybe chalk it up to the uneducated or il-informed consumer but the net result is, these other companies hardly stand a chance because they can't get their product to the consumer... either by advertisement (what standalone media player can afford to advertise on TV nationally?) or by product placement on the PC.
Ya know, its just one of those things. You can't look at yourself and think, "I installed it ergo anyone can...". That's not being honest with the status of the "consumer marketplace" as a whole.
Maybe Microsoft's big mistake was being so successful at putting a PC in every home and office that it has made its OS a utility and thus needs to be governed as such.
Yay Regulation! (yuck ugh puke)
Score: 0
|*laughs*
The other guys don't stand a chance?
Have you heard of WinAMP? Foobar? Amarok (now being ported to Windows due to demand)?
Yeah, they didn't stand a chance...
*shakes head*
Score: 0
|I've heard of each of them and tried a number of others... and that's my point.
You aren't being honest about the average computer user.
Microsoft didn't release better software to compete with Real or Netscape, they released software that would work well enough. Microsoft is consumer savvy in that they know the majority of computer shoppers are not going to bother downloading something different when what they have works well enough. Microsoft took away their need to find something else (maybe not their desire to look, but their need to look.. the different is someone who uses a computer for the basics like websurfing, instant messaging and email versus someone who is a hobbyist and wants to try other software.. compare, enhance, etc).
You can shake your head at this but the support for this argument is in the numbers. IE and Windows Media Player are by far the dominant players in their market.
There will always be niche applications like the ones you mentioned below with by far superior technology, but being better isn't enough to take market share, they also need to be convenient (i.e. preinstalled) and free (to compete with Microsoft giving away their software).
Score: 0
|Find me one person who likes RealPlayer as their primary player, and I'll never use a current version of Windows again!
Score: 0
|The average computer user seems to suck. That's why bundling stuff with the OS happened to begin with. People wanted a media player installed by default. Yet now they don't. And if you don't bundle IE with XP, how exactly does a new internet user actually download anything? Windows doesn't have fget, and the average computer user doesn't want to go into a command line anyway.
Score: 0
|I think you summed up the situation nicely.
Even though they aren't perfect, they are successful at creating an environment that people are productive using.
Anyone who thinks regulation solves any problem has never paid attention in school.
Score: 0
|Woah, hold on a second.
"People" still want the software installed. It's just that competitors that don't want it there by default because they can't market their product to "average people."
Score: 0
|PC builders should be ones to decide what software they package with their product. Microsoft was using their OS monopoly to force the PC builders to use other Microsoft products.
Score: 0
|Microsoft didn't release better software to compete with Real or Netscape, they released software that would work well enough.
LMAO... Have you ever used either of them? Both companies, I am sure, would have been beaten by *any* entry into the market, though I am only personally aware of the Netscape situation. It wasn't IE that blew Netscape away, it wasn't bundling, and it wasn't Microsoft. It was management, lack of communication, and lack of judgment. Netscape hung itself.
You can shake your head at this but the support for this argument is in the numbers. IE and Windows Media Player are by far the dominant players in their market.
And this couldn't have anything to do with usefulness or quality, I know. It's all because MS is the Big Evil. You guys kill me.
There will always be niche applications like the ones you mentioned below with by far superior technology,
I would hardly call WinAMP, FooBAr or FireFox "niche" applications.
Score: 0
|At least the EU court still did not surrender as the US DOJ did. The world is not absolutely lost! Maybe Microsoft will think into make its software better than struggle competition next time. At least, I hope so...
Score: 0
|They aren't allowed to make better software, government regulators forbid it due to monopolistic practices.
Score: 0
|There's nothing wrong with having a monopoly - just abusing it. That's what Microsoft has been found guilty of, so stop wilfully ignoring the realities of this judgement.
Score: 0
|Better software does not break competitor's software.
I hope we have seen the end of software features that exist only to prevent interoperability.
Score: 0
|The issue is that Microsof is preventing creativity and therefore competion in the market place because it denied for years information to the competion that would have improved interoperativity with MS. Has Microsoft changed since 1998 about this issue? A little bit. I hope it will change further. For those people that has been forced to purchase newer hardware because of Vista perhaps Microsoft has a long way to go. A mere new drivers would have done the trick..all that waste..
Score: 0
|interoperativity
You know it's bad when we have to make up new words to describe the situation...
For those people that has been forced to purchase newer hardware because of Vista perhaps Microsoft has a long way to go.
They didn't force anyone to buy Vista. They didn't force anyone to buy new hardware. it is simply a choice one makes if one wants to run a newer version of the MS Operating system.
A mere new drivers would have done the trick..all that waste..
I'm sure you know better than all of the devs at MS, right?
Score: 0
|How is it possible to prevent creativity?
After all, if it weren't for creativity, nobody would have never figured out that lawsuits are way more profitable than business strategies.
Score: 0
|Yes, Microsoft's business practices could loosely be described as "creative"...
GoodThings2Life - Imagine you wrote a superior OS to Windows. Do you think you could make it succeed? No - because when you tried to sell it, Microsoft would pressure anyone who could sell it be reducing the profit on any deals with them.
No one would be able to afford to take the chance of stocking your new OS, superior or not.
Where is your creativity now? Oh, it's been prevented. By Microsoft.
Score: 0
|Without proof that this is currently happening, your accusations are for naught. Dell is offering Ubuntu, and resellers are offering Ubuntu and others. I don't see the prices going up on their Windows systems, do you?
Score: 0
|To Microsoft it might feel like being bulldozed, but that's what it takes to level the playing field.
Score: 0
|The thing I hate about the Eu is they basically are saying people are too stupid to look for something else and because MS provides a media player they are monopolizing the market. MS did release Windows-N and its not their fault the oems scoffed at the idea because no one wanted it, it didn't sell.
ALL operating systems come with a media player that you can use or not use, I use four different ones depending on my mood.
Score: 0
|Nice try. Won't work.
It is quite the opposite. People are outraged that Microsoft plays its games and insults their authorities.
Score: 0
|Outraged? Are you serious?
I work for a company that thrives on Microsoft office being the dominant suite. We are hardly outraged by our profit margins!
Score: 0
|Yea...it's apparent how much people hate that MS included Media Player with the OS, as the sales number for the media centerless version obviously show!
Score: 0
|*cue all the MS Fanboi's that think MS doesn't do anything wrong*
Score: 0
|Hey, I never said MS didn't ever do anything wrong, far from it. Besides confusing the world by switching the '/' and '\' to be backwards from UNIX systems, they came about as close as they possibly could to 'stealing' MS-DOS altogether. I know of their shadey past, but I judge them based on the now, and IMHO, MS really seems to be going out of its way to 'redeem' itself from its past.
Of course, I'm talking to someone who views this from the other side of the coin, so I suppose I sound like a blind fool to you. As of late (the past 10 years or so), there are not many unethical choices MS has made as a company that I have seen--a few, but only ones I know of deal with that msjava ordeal and just a couple of the anti-American organisations that they indirectly support financially...
Score: 0
|*cue all the MS Haters who finally found something real to talk about, but didn't read the article anyway because they just want to bash MS.
*cue all the people who have legitimate complaints against MS and voice them in a reasonable manner.
*cue all the people who reasonably defend MS on certain points the EC got wrong.
Did I get everyone?
Score: 0
|It's not that they didn't do anything wrong, it's that others can't copy their success at making mistakes.
Score: 0
|...sure, whatever. Still trying to find out how MS is/was illegally forcing customers to use Windows Media Player. Heck, the version that came with XP is pretty out-dated anyway, it'd be just as easy to use another vendor's media player as it would be to use Microsoft's neweest one at this point. Then again I suppose this is still based off of the 2004 decision--still, WMP 10 was out by that time, was it not?
Score: 0
|I think the latest version then was WMP 9. I'm with you though. The complaint about the media player is absolutely ridiculous. Mac OS comes bundled with Quicktime, no? Bundling a media player is no worse than bundling a mail client or heck, even a GUI.
Wouldn't that be fun? A brand new computer user boots up to a command prompt and has to figure out how to install a desktop environment. If the EC had their way...
Score: 0
|It already exists... it's called Linux.
Score: 0
|Obviously you haven't tried any Linux distribution in many, many years. Or, you're merely parroting some FUD you've heard. In most Linux distros you have the option, during the initial install to choose any one of several desktops...or at the very least, either KDE or GNOME. How many desktop options does MS offer you during the install process?
Score: 0
|Just one that actually works without practically having to learn code before you can operate it, which sad to say, ain't the case with your cute and precious Linux.
Score: 0
|Mac OS is not a product. Apple sells computers. Microsoft supplies an OS component to the companies that actually build, sell, and support their computer products. This ruling means that PC builders can decide, just like Apple does, what media player to install on their product, without being leaned on by one of their component suppliers.
Score: 0
|apple DO sell their OS - every time the version goes uo up 0.1 you have to buy it to use the latest iTunes - while it works fine on ancient XP.
Score: 0
|You have a point. At least with MS, you don't have to learn anything. Learning is a horrible experience. If you weren't born knowing something, why should you bother with it. Right?
I've installed Linux for loads of people who are technically illiterate in respect to MS or Linux...they wouldn't have a clue as to what a command line is and they've happily used Linux and done anything they choose to do for anywhere from a few months to two years and never complain.
Score: 0
|Most people don't have time to learn the intricacies that Linux offers, they want to be able to plug in and go.
Linux is getting better but still not for prime-time. Anyone can turn around and go the opposite with what you said, I've tried installing Linux on other peoples pcs and when they keep calling asking how to do this and that, it means they aren't ready, and they aren't going to spend time on msg boards either.
Score: 0
|Well, I've installed Windows on PC's for people and they call and want to know how to this and that, with about the same frequency as with Linux. As the average Windows user when was the last time they defragged their hard drive. You get a blank look. Same with many other routine maintenance tasks. Even with updates.
About a week ago, I installed OpenSUSE 10.3 Beta 3 on my test system. Straight up...it just installed...and it was only a matter of clicking a box to add most of the proprietary stuff such as w32 codecs. All the extra repositories are included for you.
Every piece of hardware was recognized and installed, including all the functions of my HP multifunction printer. The only manual installation was the Nvidia driver, since they are not included in Beta releases. That will be included in the final release, as always.
I don't know how much more plug and go it could be...and that's just a Beta.
And, of course, instead of hunting all over the Internet for other programs...then either buying them or hacking them...it's a simple matter with Linux to just click on a box to add office suites and pretty much anything else I want or need. The real deal is that I get to pick what I want...if I don't like the default browser, media players, etc...I just don't install them...they aren't integrated into the O/S itself.
Score: 0
|Right thats your experience but the fact remains for the average user, Linux has not been a worthwhile experience.
With Windows you can ask anyone simple things and every thing will work with it software and hardware. There is no messing around with code to try to get a driver to install or hunt for something that will make it work or use some kind of hack.
Linux has grown but its always going to be a niche market, until it can decide what it wants (to look like mac's gui or windows gui)and get support for all aspects it will stay below. All you have to do is look how long Linux has been around, how many people use it? How long has it been predicted Linux will rule the desktop? Has it happened, no. Is it going to happen, not likely in this decade.
Linux has even more bugs in it then mac and windows but no one touches the damn thing so no one cares.
http://www.theregister.c...ecurity_vulnerabilities/
yes its older but there's more
http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-508-1
http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-510-1
You could look up Linux vulnerabilities all day, the fact remains it would be no safer then Windows or Mac given the user that is behind it.
The only thing I see Linux does offer you choice, but honestly the average consumer will use whats in front of them. so long as it works.
try telling an average user they need to do something with the kernal.
This is why Linux will stay in the niche market until simple things like this can be understood.
Score: 0
|The big difference between Ms and Apple soft is:
Apple sells its Os X and iTunes is totally removable, so in no way part of the Os (quicktime is actually the core engine for iTunes.)
The same thing counts for Safari.
You can and may install any browser or music software as your default.
Even in iLife you do have the possibility not to install iTunes.
So they are separate things.
I do get the impression that a lot of you guys take any opportunity to s*** on Apple without even the proper knowledge of its software and hardware.
The new hardware that Apple provides does allow you to install linux or MS-os'es. The only reason you need bootcamp is to be able to choose witch os you do want to boot.
Even in the good old days it was possible to install linux on a PPC from Apple.
The only thing you can not (officially do,) is install Os X on a non Apple hardware. (This is part of the Os specs.)
This means they limit there own software sales (to boost there hardware)
This is contradictory to what MS does.
Force to sell software on every hardware buyer where there is no free choice on what is installed and remains on that hardware (non OS programmes like IE and MP) on everybody who need to use windows.
Do yo still need proof of misuse of power?
Try to buy a new PC with Windows XP on it. (resellers risk there licenses if they sell XP with new PC's) Where is your freedom of choice ?
Another big difference is that Apple is a hardware seller that writes its one software for that hardware. To my knowledge that is still very legit.
MS sells software that should be used on hardware they do not own nor developed. So they do not own the right to decide what resides on that hardware. Enforcing to do so just because you are the biggest, in that way that people feel they have no choice is abuse of power. At least to my opinion.
Score: 0
|