RSSMicrosoft and the EU's Experiment in Socialism
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published September 28, 2007, 5:00 PM
(continued from previous page)
During the days leading up to the Court of First Instance's decision, and for a few days afterward, EC commissioners including Neelie Kroes were quoted as having invited companies anywhere in the world that compete with dominant players that do business in Europe, to bring their cases to Europe for a fairer hearing.
It would be a novel concept in world history: a competitive market in law, where prospective plaintiffs shop around for the countries or venues where they feel they may have the best chance for success. Making such a market possible is the Internet - specifically, the notion that if you sell your products on the Web, you do business under the laws of all your customers everywhere in the world.
SCOTT FULTON, BetaNews: Well, just prior to the decision last week, Neelie Kroes made a statement that sounded like she was flexing her muscle a bit, saying if we get a verdict in our favor, here, one of the possibilities that we might look at is breaking up the company. Now, last I checked, this company was established in America. They could make a law saying, if you do business, you must do it as several companies.
CARMI LEVY: Yes, in theory they could've made that a prerequisite of doing business in Europe, so if Microsoft chose to have any presence in the European market on an ongoing basis, it would either do it by the EU's rules or it wouldn't do it at all. Truth of the matter is, at this point in time, there is no real, feasible means of forcing Microsoft to break itself apart within the European context. But just the fact that it's being said is an indication of just how big the EU's bluster has become.
...Really, that's what's happening: Microsoft happens to be in the unenviable position of being the first major American company that the EU decided to put in its place as a means of sealing its newfound political pedigree.
From here, the European Commission could keep right on swinging. It's taking on Google by questioning whether its intention in merging with DoubleClick is to absorb a colossal database of private information; taking on Apple by calling into question its right to charge iTunes customers in different member states different rates per download, even though Apple pays different royalty rates for each of those countries; taking on Intel by examining whether it had the right to enter into exclusive contracts with German retailers, rewarding them for not selling AMD parts.
But in dictating the behavior of manufacturers, will the European Commission inevitably be managing the behavior of customers - or more accurately, attempting to do so?
CARMI LEVY: But ultimately, companies like Dell, HP, Lenovo, they're market-driven companies. So what may very well happen is, they will respond to market demand, and if their customers increasingly demand one kind of operating system versus another, then they will move in that direction. It's interesting that Dell has now begun providing Linux as an option on some of their client machines. It'll be interesting to see, in the months to come, whether that will in fact continue and grow. In other words, the proof is in the pudding; let's see if Dell's experiment is borne out by sufficient market demand to keep it going.
At some point, you can legislate all you want, but you can't legislate end-user behavior. And if end users have shown a taste for Windows, and just like "I Want My MTV!" they don't want to give up their Windows, then no matter what the EU says or does, it's going to be very difficult to break that. Because let's not forget, at an operating system level, Windows' dominance comes with a price. There are already massive investments in infrastructure that supports the Windows operating system both at a server and a client level. And to move away from that is a very expensive and risk-prone proposition. And a lot of businesses, even if the legislative landscape changes significantly over the next couple of years, may be very reluctant to do that, to dismantle what they've already spent years and billions of dollars investing in, and training their people [in].
It certainly wouldn't be an overnight change, but it's the kind of shift that still leaves companies like Microsoft - that are in a dominant position - vulnerable because it opens up the door for more open and open source-type solutions to at least gain a foothold where previously they might not have had that foothold.
SCOTT FULTON: Yea, but assume they get that foothold, and assume that the EU's law were perfectly fair and balanced, to borrow a poorly-used term. That goes both ways. If you think about this, in the development of Web services, surely the open source people would agree with me that Microsoft is not the only innovator here. What if Europe stands up and says, "Okay, you guys developing Web service #X have not been sharing enough with Microsoft, and it's time that you guys be interoperable, so play nice and turn over your stuff to our special handler so we can turn it over to Microsoft."
CARMI LEVY: It'll be a lot more difficult for the EU to enforce that kind of behavior, because as soon as you move these services online as opposed to selling them in a shrink-wrapped box, your ability to control the market behavior becomes much less.
SCOTT FULTON: It hasn't stopped them before.
CARMI LEVY: No, it hasn't stopped them from trying, but the practical implications of it are much more difficult to police and enforce than they are with conventional software development, delivery, and deployment.
This may very well be the EU's last chance to enforce this kind of behavior, because the market is increasingly moving toward a Web-based paradigm. Whereas up until now, it's been almost exclusively shrink-wrapped; but at some point, you lose your ability to police that kind of behavior.
In other words, as the software market evolves to become less and less discrete, where the boundaries between "software products" become more vague than we've been accustomed to, maybe neither the European Commission nor the US Justice Dept. will be able to adequately regulate manufacturers' behavior, at least at first. The dominant players at that point may be the market concerns that are able to pool the most resources, that interoperate at a much tighter level, so as to become a kind of "virtual conglomerate."
And who will want to step up to the plate to regulate corporate behavior in that environment? Carmi Levy believes it may be the legislative body that, by that time, has had the most success with driving new efficiencies in corporate and manufacturing processes. Companies that are more aware of government oversight, he says, institute tighter controls on their own processes, expenditures, and strategies than they would have otherwise, even if those companies aren't quite certain it's all that fair.
In many ways, these quasi-government authorities might be doing companies like Microsoft and companies unlike Microsoft a favor by making life more difficult for them, and forcing them to tow a more narrow line.
SCOTT FULTON: So socialism is good.
CARMI LEVY: In the sense that it forces honesty in how companies conduct themselves, and it forces introspection, and it forces transparency. And it forces the kind of behaviors, like multiple forms of checks and balances, that in a purely capitalistic regime simply wouldn't exist. So what it does is, at the extreme ends of the envelope, it tends to blunt the kinds of behaviors that really do turn some people off of capitalism - the extremes of sales and of competitiveness that can sometimes turn ugly. This forces companies to back away from the precipice, and really question how they can achieve success in a more balanced manner.
Unfortunately, sort of where we're at in the period of evolution is, I think the EU is just using it as an opportunity to grandstand, and we're probably going to see more grandstanding in the years to come as the EU establishes itself on the world stage. Unfortunately, by virtue of the fact that many of the global targets are American companies that have innovated and dominated their markets for the better part of the last generation, unfortunately, it's American companies that are going to stand in the way while the EU gains its footing on a global scale.
SCOTT FULTON: A very, very different world.
CARMI LEVY: Very much so, and it's going to continue to evolve. The concept of unabashed, unabridged American dominance in a global marketplace in many respects no longer exists, and this is yet another proof point of that.
I can see some really valid points in this article but frankly I don't agree.
The argument that the EU position towards Microsoft has little to do with capitalist america vs socialist europe. America has had to control monopolist companies too several times in its history. For instance the move against TWA having exclusive international flights rights.
Or the split of AT&T.
The thing is. When a company gets so big that it can use its weigtht and power to "cheat" so to speak, and leave no chance and thus no space for evolution, it leaves governments no chance but to act and level the playing field.
Also it must be said. Microsoft is a non european company. What this pretty much means is that the EU looses even more than the US in terms of competitiveness. Things also work this way the opposite direction. Pretty much any nation tries to protect its "crown jewels" so to speak.
Its not about having a private company (capitalist system) vs a state company (socialist system).
If you really want to talk about this fairly you need to look at european nations one by one and see what are really the key players in the market. Are they state companies? or privatized ones?
The problem is preception. I think its time for people to realize that the so called extreme socialism is pretty much dead in europe...
Fact is most the biggest players in Europe are privatized companies. And in fact this are companies that are pressuring the EU to take action against Microsoft.
Bottom line is
EVERYONE WANTS A PIECE OF THE PIE...
Score: 0
|Having finally revisited this article the fourth time with a cleared mindset, it has become more and more obvious that I just don't understand the way that the EU works as well as I should.
Therefore, as far as the EU being socialist/communist/etc. goes, I guess I have over-analysed a geopolitical entity in which I was less than qualified to make such direct statements about.
While I may still "have bad feelings" about the EC, based on some of what I know of their members' upbringing in part, but also based on my personal beliefs best understood about the "Social cycle theory" (I'm not a full-fledged follower of the theory, but this description fits here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory), my thoughts of the EU and socialism remain proofless for the time being.
Hocuspokus: I am still just in my mid-twentes, and admit that sometimes my 'hasty generalisation' side still shows its ugly head through me. Thank you for the informative debate :)
Score: 0
|"Thank you for the informative debate"
- My pleasure and back at you.
.....and mid-20's? Lucky you. I hope you make the most of it!
(and age is nothing but a number - and sadly some degree of physical decline! - but only fools think they are too old to ever learn anything new.)
Good luck to you.
Score: 0
|Absolutely no one knows where this will take us. The EU certainly doesn't know.
It all falls under the law of unintended consequences. You may start in one direction and end up going in a completely different way.
The Chinese, who build most of the electronics in the world today, are bound to have a major impact on the future of the industry as well.
This goes way beyond OSs or even PCs. The US can no longer dictate policy in this area. This strikes at the heart of our domination of industries in many areas. Certainly we have lost domination of the auto industry and the television industry. We simply lack the political and financial muscle to tell other nations what their internal policies will be.
Recent events should indicate to all of us that we are witnessing a new place for America on the world stage. What that will be is anyone's guess.
Score: 0
|WoW ! this Artical has stirred up a HORNETS NEST!
Score: 0
|Yeah. The word socialism tends to stir up debate anywhere...it's almost as bad as the word "Bush" :D
Score: 0
|Well, they are a horrible band, ya know.
Score: 0
|Socialism? You have GOT to be s***ting me.
Score: 0
|I wonder if the question should not be made just in the opposite way: Why am I not allowed to buy a new computer without forcing me to pay also for a preloaded OS just in that moment, anywhere in the world? Who is behind this?
Score: 0
|Your not to my knowledge, and I buy hundreds of computers. I can buy a computer with no OS, or Linux just as easily as getting a computer with XP or Vista. Is it somehow different in the EU, that I don't know about, since i have not been there since before the EU took over?
Score: 0
|Proffesionals always find a computer with no OS. But most people surrender when they ask for a computer in different stores and the common answer is "All we have is this".
Score: 0
|Just because something is the "easiest" choice does not mean there are not others; nor should there be laws requiring all choices to be the same difficulty.
Score: 0
|In fact, the only choices that should be "easiest" by the simple economics of supply and demand are the ones demanded by the majority. Since we, as geeks, are not the majority, our desires are not, and should not be, reflected in the mass market.
The products that meet our desires are out there. I made a similar comment below implying a direct (mostly) correlation between demand and marketshare. Bare PC's are out there. They're lack of marketshare, and thus visibility on the face of the market, are directly attributable to the near total lack of demand on the part of the majority of consumers.
It's a simple concept, really. I'm amazed how many people here are unable to comprehend it.
Score: 0
|Leaving apart the need to buy a computer, because nowadays it is one of the first needs both in America and EU, and taking into account in this point the power of advertising, as one of the essential elements which have influence in the average buyer's decision, I think the question could be resumed this way:
-Advertising + supply = sales
-No ads and no supply = no sales
If you consider:
-Advertising + supply = Hard + soft suppliers (they are the ones who advertise and sell).
By substituting elements, the equation becomes:
-Hard + soft suppliers = sales
(This is not valid for geeks, of course)
Score: 0
|Not really sure what this has to do with 'socialism' - that is about the common ownership of industry.
This EU decision is much more in the Sherman AntiTrust actions vein, which is 100% US capitalist! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
Score: 0
|I can only hope that someday it will spread to the U.S. I would love to see computers become "naked" as Microsoft puts it. Perhaps then they will price their stuff better, not to mention all the crapware that are put on machines and with no real O/S to begin with nowadays, instead you get disks that restore your system (if your lucky to get one). And many make it so you have to create your bloatware restore disks.
Score: 0
|Lucky for you, you *can* buy a naked computer. You're a tech, you know where to find them.
The majority of users do *not* want a naked PC, hence the lack of them in the big retailers.
See how well that works?
What the majority of people want will easily be found in the market, and those products dominate the market. What the minority of people want, while still available only makes up a small minority of the market.
See how that works? Basic economics.
Score: 0
|um, can i say the EU could if we allw them to become, the roman empire?, the republican councel? you cannot sneeze without the councels blessing?
why do we need some body with this much power? and force? do we need to be told what we want? i think choice, i think keeping a coice is a good thing, but if dell wants to sell windows with it, and no one wants that, dell will know, by lack of sales, and change for the consumers.
we want the companies to have to choice, or else we loose the coice as the consumer..
let the consumers make the choice wich effects the consumer.
thats like being told, you no longer get to vote, instead, the EU will tell you who gets to run for party, and you can choose of those parties.
so then the EU decides they only want [this guy] in power, and says theres no choice this time, [this guy] is the best, and this is how its gonna be.
can i say if this continues, we are going to have to eventually rebel, and then over throw the EU, it will be far worse then a currupt leader in iraq,[according to the states etc] but now you have somone who controls alot more then just one country... just my two sents
Score: 0
|From what I can see (so far) the EU is only trying to give choices to consumers. Forcing 'naked' PCs will make companies offer PCs without an OS and then consumers can add a Windows install if they like.
At the moment, that choice is not available to consumers. If the EU is going to give me the choices that I want, then I'm all for it. I just had a look at Dell.com and just randomly clicked a PC to see if I could buy it without Windows and associated crapware: I can't. And I daresay the same applies for all the big OEMs.
Score: 0
|You always could buy PCs without an OS here in Germany. They don't come totally naked but with a fig leaf (DOS). If you buy a DOS flavoured Laptop you save about 70 € compared to the one with Vista Home Premium.
Score: 0
|Democracy describes a small number of related forms of government. The fundamental features of democracies include government based on majority rule and the consent of the governed, the existence of free and fair elections, the protection of political minorities, respect for basic human rights, equality before the law, due process, and political pluralism. Equality before the law means whay it says. Microsoft is not different.
Score: 0
|I'm sure you are right, but it kind of sucks to look at your comment and realize that I can't think of a country today that would fit that description of Democracy :)
Score: 0
|i agree, there is no Democracy, those parties in power, are in power becasue of those that fund them, wich are the money bags, not the votes. if you want to vote, you need a big wallet... wich needs to change as well.
Score: 0
|Monopolies have the tendency to fix prices and keep them at a high level and tend to prevent creativity and competition. Governments' duty is to amplify competition no to curtail it. Any other argument such as "the market will take care of itself without regulators" does not wash if it weren't for usa and EU central banks right now we all be in a serious depression. Goverments should act as facilitators for business treating everyone equally. Microsoft is not different. More competition more choices for society and good for the economy because we can buy goods and services cheaper. If I drive too fast I have to pay a fine because there are rules that say so the same applies to Microsoft. I am sure that everyone apply their own rules in their homes were they live.
Score: 0
|An easy explanation for the simple minds that are balking at the title:
In a purely non-socialist "utopia", government's only mandate is to defend the country and protect the rights of their citizens.
*Any* step outside of that boundary to regulate morality, business, or social works without presenting a case involving clear and present danger to the rights of others is a step towards socialism, tyranny, or totalitarianism. In the case of business, it is by default, socialistic.
The debate of whether or not such regulations are necessary is valid and useful. Debating whether or not the regulation of business is at all socialistic, by any measure, is pointless.
Score: 0
|In a socialist "utopia" there is no competition or diversity of products, just one state administered generic line of products.
The EU is trying to brainstorm ideas with the objective of increasing the number and diversity of PC products, and allowing more competitors to bring more new innovations to market.
That does not look like socialism, not even a little bit.
You might be hung up in two dimensional space but there are other directions besides left and right.
Score: 0
|*laughs*
Any attempt by the government to control the market in any way is socialist in nature. I never commented on how well or how badly it related to a utopian view of socialism.
Step off the high-horse for a second and just *try* to be logical. I am *not* calling the EC socialist.
Score: 0
|"Any attempt by the government to control the market in any way is socialist in nature."
No it is not.
You don't get to redefine a word just because you want to stick a label with negative connotations on normal responsible government behavior.
Every government of any type must regulate business, in socialism the government also administers the businesses.
Score: 0
|lmao...
Every government of any type must regulate business
Wrong. Again.
Look, you can go ahead and define it however you want. This is ridiculous. Any government control of any industry is a socialistic in nature. Go ahead and argue all you want, but it remains true. Just because it is necessary in some cases (some more arguable than others) does not make it any less socialistic in nature.
What you seem to be stuck on is the negative connotation. I've stated several times that *many* (of not all) countries have laws like this out of (arguable) necessity. This does not by definition make it evil, or wrong, or bad.
Just because a word has negative connotations in the general public doesn't mean you get to redefine it either. :)
Score: 0
|If the EU was proposing nationalizing Microsoft and all the PC builders, seizing their bank accounts, and displacing their executives, then socialism would an accurate label.
I really should not be wasting my time. I know I can't pry loose your stubborn embrace of ignorance, but I did hope for better from Scott. Using inaccurate, emotionally charged, labels is a mark of yellow journalism. I guess what we have here is the National Enquirer of technology news.
Score: 0
|If the EU was proposing nationalizing Microsoft and all the PC builders, seizing their bank accounts, and displacing their executives, then socialism would an accurate label.
Good, you're getting there. Now all you need to do is follow that exact line of thought to it's logical conclusion. Any step towards the above quote is socialistic in nature.
The EU is proposing the imposition on a specific market a product of their devising. This is a step in the direction you quoted above. While it does not go whole-hog into socialism, it is socialistic in nature.
Thanks for playing.
Score: 0
|Regulating a dysfunctional market so that it will perform better is not in the same direction, the same neighborhood, or anywhere nearby nationalizing an industry.
Score: 0
|Hmm--this is a tough one...
PC_TOOL, any ideas? A definition of nationalization, maybe?
So correct me if I word this incorrectly...are you basically saying that having more industry regulation from the national level wouldn't be considered "in the same direction, the same neighborhood, or anywhere nearby nationalizing an industry"?
Score: 0
|Nationalizing is the take over of corporate administration by government officials.
Score: 0
|...and forcing a market to sell a product that it would not normally sell isn't a step in that direction?
Give us all a break. You're just being absurd now.
Score: 0
|I'm still trying to get over "regulating a dysfunctional market".
One has to wonder how the hell forcing a market to sell a product that they have rightly determined very few people want does *anything* of the sort.
You don't need to define nationalization. Any government control of an industry, no matter how small or for what purpose, necessary or not, is more socialistic than not. He's just hung up on the fact that it's not the end (true socialism), but the means to it (more socialistic than capitalistic or free-market).
Regardless of the good/bad names you want to put on any market, be it social, free, or capitalist, government control in any form swings towards social.
Score: 0
|"Republic" and "Democracy" means "Hey, guys! We believe that you're smart enough to represent our interests as a nation(s), so we make you The Government. You may do what you want, as long as we are pleased with your actions".
If europeans think that EU government actions is ok, or if they just don't care enough, then it is O.K. It's not about "right" or "wrong", it's about desires of people. You should have eigter a big army/police force, or a people's support - and you may do whatever you want. USSR had people's support in early XX century and army/police in in mid XX century. And they did a lot of things. And now EU government does.
Now, about "freedom". Thing is, "freedom" and "security" are mutually exclusive things. To get more security you have to give up some freedom. If EU people wants security (less agressive market), they will agree with more government market regulations, than any USer will allow. And because a right to choose whatever OS you will use on your PC is a form of freedom, this particular reguilation is considered a good deal, since it gets both freedom and security.
Score: 0
|What you describe is Mob Rule. Good luck with that, let us know how it works for ya.
Score: 0
|Coming next: cars without engines or wheels. pop tarts without filling. and then... (dramatic music)... xbox/wii and ps3 consoles with no o/s installed either.
Score: 0
|'Tear
Score: 0
|"Coming next"
- Compare apples with apples, not oranges, eh?
The car analogy might work if the car manufacturer made you run their car on their fuel.
I can already opt for different wheels and tyres if I choose.
An individual pop-tarts filling is hardly an optional changeable part, it is intrinsic to the 'good'.
I suppose there might be a remote chance this could come to be seen in similar ways with game consoles but the OS is hardly the issue there, it's the games and there is no shortage of free access to the market by independents or parties other than the producers there.
Score: 0
|It's called sarcasm. You should try it sometime.
Score: 0
|"not American" to stop a company from abusing their monopoly?? Didn't IBM get tagged for doing just that, many years ago? They were told they had to compete fairly, just as the EU told Microsoft now. And Microsoft wasn't told to wait for others to catch up, just to play fair, and I don't think that's foreign to American ideals.
Score: 0
|deleted
Score: 0
|The EU's attempt and endeavors are commendable because they are insuring that consumers (not big business) have “the choice”.
Besides pc's should have been sold without an o.s. from the beginning of time. However, at least now, the EU will enforce democratic values and allow its people to buy the o.s. they want for the pc they buy.
Fundamentally, Microsoft is a “dictatorship” -either you do it their way or else.
Microsoft however, is not alone and many American Companies are equally guilty.
Because of failures in our American Government Big Business prospers without limits while the working class become poorer.
The EU is doing a GOOD JOB. We Americans should be so lucky to have a government with the ballocks to stand up to Big Business.
Score: 0
|Fundamentally, Microsoft is a “dictatorship” -either you do it their way or else.
Or else what? You do it somebody else's way? The fact that we choose to do it Microsoft's way implies there is a choice, no?
Score: 0
|"Microsoft however, is not alone and many American Companies are equally guilty".
An old proverb says: "Birds of the same feather fly together".
Score: 0
|an "alternative" is not always a "choice".
Big Business has the "power to manipulate" markets and governments whilst the little guys like yourself and small companies have none.
Ultimately it is the governments that control the gates that determine wheher or not to allow GIANTS to come in and stomp around without care for the smaller things under their feet. And if one GIANT is allowed to come in then others will take that opportunity as well.
Then after everything has been stomped into the ground and nothing is left, they will move on to other fertile grounds, eg untapped markets and governments.
Don't be so determined to support big business. Frankly they do not care if you "bourgeoisdude" live or die. The owners and executives are wealthy beyond your imagination. They are simply whining from the EU that they want more...
Score: 0
|an "alternative" is not always a "choice".
Semantics. Who decides whether it is choice or alternative? Ultimately, whomever answers the question decides. Point: I believe there are many other choices out there that can do just as well as Microsoft, if one is willing to seek them out. To me, Microsoft is purely choice.
Want network security? Microsoft can be secured just as well as any other solutions IMO--but what about Linux and other *nix products, you say? Want a diverse platform that is easy to use? Some flavors of Linux can be very user-friendly, and some people swear they are worlds better than Microsoft.
At my job, we are considering moving a mixed-mode NT/2000 network over to mostly Linux servers. Whoa--did anyone else get that? You mean we can actually...consider not HAVING to use Microsoft products? This in and of itself proves that there is choice for Network OS selection.
We also support a couple of Mac OS users. Oh, and the products that allow us to communicate with Mac OS boxes are MICROSOFT products, by the way. Were there other products out there? Of course, but whomever setup the network before our current IT group got here chose Microsoft, and that solution suffices for now.
Want Microsoft AND something else? Work extra to get two companies to play nicely--the same is true with every other company in every industry in the world--it isn't Microsoft's problem. In fact, as I pointed out in the above paragraph, Microsoft can be a more universal platform than Unix from the driver standpoint--Windows supports more hardware natively than Mac OSX, *nix, and Netware combined.
In many ways, Microsoft creates more choice than open source does. Now I'm sure that line could be quoted by itself to make me look foolish, but put in context, it's easy to understand why everyone else is playing catchup to Microsoft. Not because they can't make good products, but because Microsoft makes better products.
In the end, isn't the goal for better products at cheaper prices? Is Microsoft really destroying that process? Why isn't HP being penalized for including their printer software with every one of their PCs? Isn't HP Dominant right now? Who CHOOSES what company is dominant and what company isn't? Politicians that could be good or evil and we just have to obey their decisions, whether they are right or wrong? Shouldn't consumers choose?
EU needs more checks and balances, so that IF those at the top decide they want to rule the universe, the people can stop them. At the same time there need to be absolutes, of course, but even the best intentions could ruin the economy, endanger citizens, etc. Why allow the EC to have absolute final say? Gripe about Bush all you want, HE CAN DO LITTLE OF ANYTHING WITHOUT ENOUGH PEOPLE IN CONGRESS TO SUPPORT HIM. And if the American people sign enough petitions or scream loudly enough, even Congress cannot overide the wishes of the American people. There are varying degrees as to who can do what, and we as Americans cannot simply run the country as we wish--government still does as it will whether I agree or not--but overwhelming majorities always supercede individual entities.
If the EC does something that the majority of Europeans disagree with, are there any actions you can take to keep their power in check? Do Europeans have any choice in these matters? I really do wish to know if there are any...please post URL's or something.
Score: 0
|When pc's are sold without software, the consumer will have the real choice of choosing what operating system and software they want on it.
If they choose Linux and open source compatiable software over Microsoft and thier products, then the consumer will be saving a lot of money.
I think this is the foundation for the issue at hand - money and market share.
Score: 0
|what id like to see next, competitor companies now being able to buy out, and take over.
no more of this one company, with sister companies, owning the markets.
Score: 0
|my dad stated that he herd about a organization in the states, one of the states, where a guy builds a trust fund, and its in a trust fun, in another trust fund, and another etc..
they aproach farmers, and say,: your land is worth 3 million on market to be sold to make realistate, and only worth 200,000 for farm land use, heres what we will do for you, we will give you 3 million to do as you please now, but from that we will keep the 200,000, and you sign this contract, stating that you can keep your land as long as you want, its your land, but when you decide to sell it, it must be sold for the farm land cost, to somone using it for farm land.
meaning, farmers dont get screwed into selling their land for commercial use, and it goes to what the land is best used for, and they dont get shafted on the money they get for the land.
too bad the goverment did not think of this, it took one man, almost 15 years fighting for this.
Score: 0
|i think whats funny in this case, is the EU stands for standardisation, and well, microsoft, as mentioned in the post above, allows the most standardization, for document sharing, driver sharing, and well, most compatable, so i dont know why the spin when to be all against microsoft...
i agree that if microsoft needs to change the os, then, so does apple, and if thats the case, well what about the iphone? or the zune? why limit it to just PCs? why is apple allowed to sell their iphone with just the force of getting the iphone os on it?, thats no choice for a consumer?
Oh snap, yes it is, they can choose to buy it, or to not...
and i think its funny, and agree with the HP printer software as well, but what can we do?
Score: 0
|Really Ben.
Since the PC Manufactures are getting deep discounts on OS's and other software for their machines. Now if the EU does mandate this, Microsoft now could go to the Manufactures and say no we are not giving you any discounts on any of the OS's other software that are sold in Europe and to the distributors as well.
So now a Customer comes in to buy a pc for I.E. $1000.00. Now the salesman needs to know what it going to be used for to recomend an Os and software. if the customer has a family most likely will want Correspondance , Bussiness, Music and Games.
So let's take look at the alternatives.
Microsoft, Compatible with All Hardware, All Software.
Apple, Propritory Hardware/Software. Not compatible will existing hardware or software.
Linux etc., Not Compatible with All Hardware,I.E. Nic Cards, Wireless, Video Cards, Sound Cards. Software, Open Source Alternatives to Some MS and other Programs. May run Some MS programs under Virtual Machine program. Not Compatible with majorty of game programs. May not run with existing hardware.
Would that be a fair assestment of the alternatives Ben?
So if I'm purchasing for a family?
I'll have no problems with MS.
Apple I'll have to buy All new Hardware and Software.
Linux, May have to buy new items to be compatible with OS.
Most likely I would buy MS. Now I have to Buy the OS.
The manufactures may have a package but since they will no longer be getting a discount it will cost more. Let's say $500.00 more.
Now to buy ready to go pc right now cost aprox. $1300.00. That means I'll have to pay $200.00 more for the same PC. And I have not included taxes that would have to be paid.
If the EU goes ahead with this Who get's hurt?
MS won't. They will make more.
PC manufactures won't. They will make more.
Even the Government won't. They will make more on Taxes.
So it's down to the Consumer again that get hurt by a Decsion (sp?) by a Government Body.
Ben I do Like Linux OS, But until they fix the problems with Hardware Compatiablity and get get Major Software Companies on side Linux will be a poor second choice.
Score: 0
|I'd rather have the right and the opportunity to choose between a blank comp or a preloaded one, and in this second case also the right and the opportunity to choose between different preloaded systems, doesn't matter if I am in America or in EU.
Score: 0
|the EU i think means that for instance, dell has to offer Linux, Mac os, and Windows as choices, i dont think they mean a blank pc.? i could be wrong though.
Score: 0
|I bet Steve Jobs would pull Apple out of Europe before he sells OSX on Dell machines.
Score: 0
|I'd rather buy the computer in a box and my favourite OS in another one, or even buy the OS somewhere else. Or maybe I already have an OS of my own and I don't need to pay for it.
Score: 0
|While I don't like Microsoft I feel that the EU is overreaching in their powers. If I was Microsoft, I'd stop selling products in Europe until the EU reconsidered their ruling. I think that this is setting bad legal precedent, while I'd like some systems to be packaged without an OS, I think that this could lead to some problems down the road that we haven't thought of yet in other businesses.
Score: 0
|"If I was Microsoft, I'd stop selling products in Europe until the EU reconsidered their ruling"
Great, fantastic. Microsoft lose access to their most lucrative market, and their software division's profits are cut in half. Linux and OpenOffice gain mainstream acceptance.
Win-win.
Score: 0
|Most users would not know how to use Linux and would demand that the OEMs be able to package Windows again. To be honest, maybe they shouldn't do anything of the sort, and instead appeal to the consumers to lobby the government.
Score: 0
|imagine, just like this iphone update issue, if microsoft decided to do an update, and make all the EU windows not work properly anymore,
also there was a comment about getting the EU to stop using windows, i dont think thats how its going to be,
any time a ruling is past, in some form of goverment, you have to understand its a two sided rule, it means no one else can do this anymore, except us, becasue were special.
Score: 0
|"I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property and lives of their people." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823. ME: 15:436
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:321
I believe TJ was correct then, and I dare say that it is just as true today as it was then.
Score: 0
|Ok, let's re-count;
* How many wars has European countries started in the last 50 years? How many invasions?
* How many wars has USA started in the last 50 years? How many invasions?
* Who is the head of NATO (no alliances, was it?)?
* How many percent of the EU citizen live below the UN set poverty line? What is that number in USA?
* "honest friendship with all nations" - It must be the reason why Americans are the top kidnapping and terrorist targets in the world then?
Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers of USA were extraordinary people with great vision, but their ideals have been, and is being, diluted on a daily basis.
Score: 0
|i dont know about that, id think i could be ignorant, but, the USA goes to the UN and states, were going to war against these people, and your helping us NOW, becasue i WANT it my WAY!, and the UN says, whoa, are you crazy? you cant do this USA, you need to think about this a bit more, and what does the USA state? oh yah, your doing it NOW MY WAY or else..
so off goes france and a few others, to help out, because they have to HELP their USA dictator, or else when s*** hits the fan for them, they need the USA, ...
soo yah CANADA decides they arnt going to help, and the USA makes a big FUSS< and posts all over and fights with CANADA to help out, untill finally CANADA with all the pressure, and force, help out..
i tihnk its become the opposite now from the quotes from thomas jefferson...
the states brain washes their people into going to war with another nation, and wasting millions of lives, so that the USA gets the oil, and the control of another NATION,
why does this country need democrecy? did they ask for it? did they vote for it, were they even aware this was happening before hand?
why push your views on somone else? theres a difference between education, and blinders.
do you think if france said oh jeeze we NEED all you from the UN to do this, and try and force it like the USA, would the UN or USA or anyone else put soo much into that ? would the events have unfolded like they did in the USAs favor?
Score: 0
|Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers of USA were extraordinary people with great vision, but their ideals have been, and is being, diluted on a daily basis.
My point exactly...
...though I may not agree with all of the points you added above that point. Also, by TJ's mentality, the UN is stupid. It's nothing but an attempt to fool people into believing that nations that have fundamentally different values and beliefs can actually get along with each other.
Iran will NEVER fully agree with the US.
The US will NEVER fully agree with the way Saudi Arabia works.
Heck, even England will never agree with the US, and vice versa.
The diplomats and officials who tell us otherwise are lying. There is power in words--but only so much. It can dictate your life and affect others, but words cannot control others, no matter how many times you repeat them.
Score: 0
|Well, what I'd like to know is what does this do to Apple? Will this force them to ensure their OS isn't locked to a specific hardware set? Also, Apple computers will now be 'blank' until you install your OSX/Windows on it...
That'll be fun for users.
Score: 0
|What has socialism anything to do with that proposal ? It's pure liberalism and pure capitalism to sell PCs without any OS installed, where is socialism in that ? There is none, that's the point.
Having had Microsoft able to dictate that their OSes must be pre-installed or PCs shouldn't be sold.. that is true socialism like in communistic regimes.
Score: 0
|"What has socialism anything to do with that proposal ? It's pure liberalism and pure capitalism to sell PCs without any OS installed, where is socialism in that ? There is none, that's the point."
To argue that it is socialistic may be a purely subjective argument; however, there are many evidences of this.
First and foremost, the EC, for all intents and purposes, is the government per se. There may even be arguments saying the EC is separate, but looking at the basic functions of government, that is a difficult point to prove.
Seeing the EC as the government, they are, essentially, flexing their arms and showing that they own the free market. Even Webster's dictionary defines socialism as "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods", and since the EC is essentially the final authority, I'd say the fate of the European Free Market ultimately rests in their hands here.
They are supposed to represent the people, of course, just as any republic, but can the people of EU do anything to object? Are there any measures that can FORCE the EC to listen to the people? Perhaps there are measures in place to ensure the EC doesn't obtain too much power without any checks and balances, but I don't know of any personally.
Getting back to your question, the proposal in and of itself may not be pure "socialism", but the implied powers that the EC have based on the proposals alone would suggest that they are indeed a socialistic society.
Score: 0
|Having had Microsoft able to dictate that their OSes must be pre-installed or PCs shouldn't be sold.. that is true socialism like in communistic regimes.
Again--how can Microsoft be socialistic? He isn't even trying to become a political leader--he's a businessman. The big difference in capitalism and socialism is not as much in the how to regulate, but who should regulate: capitalism favors business, socialism favors government.
Score: 0
|"First and foremost, the EC, for all intents and purposes, is the government per se."
- Stop right there.
It isn't.
It just isn't.....
..... and I know many Americans like to see it as 'kinda like'.......but no amount of trying to 'shoe-horn' the EU & the 27 sovereign nation states that comprise it into some sort of a parallel with the USA and the states that comprise the USA is ever going to get this right.
If you honestly think otherwise you're plain wrong.
The EU is run and controlled by the member states governments.
The Presidents, Prime Ministers and Ministers of the day decide policy along with their nominated national representatives (who are the 'Commissioners') in the EU commission.
We do have an EU Parliament with directly elected MEP (members of the European Parliament) but the sovereign national Govs are very careful to limit the powers of the EU.
This is why some people think they can point to a 'democratic deficit' in the EU.
But that POV fails to account for the fact that the sovereign nation states are extremely mindful not to lose too much power to the EU.
It is in fact the truth that explodes the myth about an 'all powerful' EU.
"Seeing the EC as the government, they are, essentially, flexing their arms and showing that they own the free market."
- No.
The sovereign nation states have freely agreed to act collectively within a framework of trading law, this was never imposed by 'the EU'.
You really are 'putting the cart before the horse' if you insist on using this kind of description of what is going on.
'We' have effectively 'pooled' some of our economic sovereignty because we know that individually and alone we cannot stand up to the world's largest economies and corporations.
But 'tough titty' to them cos the penny dropped long ago and we really have had the sense to choose to cooperate on these matters and act on this collectively.
"They are supposed to represent the people"
- Well actually the EU is a collective of the sovereign nation states' Governments acting together.
The EU is not our 'Gov' so you're way off imagining the relationships are like this.
"Perhaps there are measures in place to ensure the EC doesn't obtain too much power without any checks and balances, but I don't know of any personally."
- Well, and I'm not trying to cause you any offence, but you really don't have an accurate idea of what the EU actually is IMO.
"Getting back to your question, the proposal in and of itself may not be pure "socialism"
- No, it's not actually 'socialism' by any credible and accurate definition of the term at all.
"but the implied powers that the EC have based on the proposals alone would suggest that they are indeed a socialistic society."
- Nonsense, come off it.
That is so broad a claim that it could apply to every political body that chooses to impose law and regulation upon business.
It's absurd to claim this is 'socialism'.
Nowhere in these proposals is there any hint or mention of 'the means of production' coming under the 'collective ownership of the people'.
That's what 'socialism' actually is.
But sadly like the term 'liberal' the word 'socialism' is being used in the USA to describe something which is not actually correct to the word/noun/term.
Score: 0
|"First and foremost, the EC, for all intents and purposes, is the government per se."
Stop right there.
It isn't.
It just isn't.....
...The EU is run and controlled by the member states governments...
Okay--so the EU is 'controlled' by the government, then. I stand corrected.
Nowhere in these proposals is there any hint or mention of 'the means of production' coming under the 'collective ownership of the people'.
That's what 'socialism' actually is.
...so you read the definition, but yet...well, let me put it here again:
"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" (emph. added)
They dare not directly link themselves with a pure socialistic form of government...it could be easily explained that it is their ultimate goal, however. Then again there are other explainations for their stance, which again makes this point purely subjective I suppose.
But sadly like the term 'liberal' the word 'socialism' is being used in the USA to describe something which is not actually correct to the word/noun/term.
I agree that there are far too many words being misused. This is the biggest problem with the English language--too many nouns, adjectives and adverbs. Great language for writing poetry, but horribly inspecific and subjective, just like this argument over how this particular word is used.
Well, and I'm not trying to cause you any offence, but you really don't have an accurate idea of what the EU actually is IMO.
No offence taken. I will agree that I do not know even half of the specifics as far as EU law goes, what gets done where, how many votes it takes for this (or no votes at all) to be approved, etc. I don't even know all there is to know of our own government, but I do have a pretty good idea of how it works. Studying the differing forms and theories of government is a fairly simple study at its core...the specifics are the things that take doctorates just to understand.
Score: 0
|"Okay--so the EU is 'controlled' by the government, then. I stand corrected."
- 'Governments (plural) would be more accurate, and there are 27 of them.
All with their own different 'take' on things and priorities.
Bear in mind those sovereign nation states (most with long histories) are a world away from the states or counties within a country (in all sorts of ways in relation to international law etc etc)
If you start to give this the consideration it deserves you'll start to get the idea that the EU as some kind of proto-'superstate' is a fantasy reserved for those with an agenda all of their own.
It simply does not reflect any credible reality.
The 'superstate' idea is, frankly, absurd.......an absurdity proved by the 'no' results of the 2 referendum held in France and Holland in 2005 on that so-called 'constitution'
(which was actually nothing of the sort, it was originally described as such as a handy 'short-hand' term for the treaty which back-fired mightily.
It actually was a treaty to update previous treaties originally designed for a 7/9/12 state EEC etc to today's 27 state EU)
Even if you do believe there is a serious movement in Europe to create such a thing (and there are those who would prefer that) it is quite clear that the peoples of the sovereign nation states do not.
.....but that is a world away from claiming they are unhappy with the EU (it really doesn't rate that highly on many people's 'radar' here) or that they want out.
"so you read the definition"
- No mate, I'm a reasonably educated guy in my 40's from the UK.
I just happen to know what the correct definition of 'socialism' is.
"They dare not directly link themselves with a pure socialistic form of government."
- We actually have very few 'socialist' national Governments in the EU and the EU itself sure as hell isn't 'socialist'.
There are such things as regional aid and transfer payments to mitigate the effects of the Euro (for instance) and we have aid schemes to farmers and we even have state lending to some industries but none of these things are 'socialist' per se.
They can be but are not necessarily......it would be like saying 'they breathe air in a socialist country' so therefore your country has socialist attributes.
That might be so on a very superficial level but it is nevertheless an absurd parallel.
Europe is not 'socialist'.
We are a capitalist group of countries, a slightly different version of capitalism I agree but it most certainly is nothing like any credible definition of 'socialism'.
"..it could be easily explained that it is their ultimate goal, however."
- .....and I'd say that was to utterly misunderstand the truth of the situation.
If you imagine 'Europe' is some sort of egalitarian collective you are kidding yourself.
It's true that, generally speaking, there is not the vast chasm between the least well off and the most well off in many European societies, but the gap is there - and in some EU countries it is far greater than in others.
IIRC the gap currently tends to be somewhere around what it was in the USA in the late 1960s & early 1970s - which I doubt was a socialist America by any sane definition?
We do not btw have harmonised or, as some might prefer to pretend it might be, 'EU-imposed' (or even better 'dictated') uniform taxation or welfare systems.
" Then again there are other explainations for their stance, which again makes this point purely subjective I suppose."
- Precisely, those who really want to imagine a 'red' Europe undoubtedly won't let the facts get in the way.
"Great language for writing poetry, but horribly inspecific and subjective, just like this argument over how this particular word is used."
- Ha! I agree. Well put.
.....and yet for all that it's precise enough to have become the world's technical language (in a host of sciences and safety related areas - air travel for instance)?
"I will agree that I do not know even half of the specifics as far as EU law goes, what gets done where, how many votes it takes for this (or no votes at all) to be approved, etc. I don't even know all there is to know of our own government, but I do have a pretty good idea of how it works."
- Which is the beauty of these boards.
Besides pulling people's chains every once in a while they can be amazingly informative.
.....and of course it works both ways, I certainly wouldn't consider myself 'expert' on the EU (or the minutia of even the UK's procedures) and yet I would say I am maybe pretty well informed on such matters but I'd definitely not make any claims about an in-depth understanding of the US system.
Score: 0
|i just thought of something here...
if DELL is an american company, on american soil, the EU has no power over DELL at all, where the issue is, is were DELL sells out their factories here, and closes them down, and then ships off to a europian country, and starts up shop there...
the EU is saying while in our countries, selling and making in our countries, this is what we want...
its the same as the USA saying, well when you sell those products in america, we want them to pass these standards, and rules...
to some degree, they have much higher standards then us, and the USA, what makes that bad? maybe were just behind, just like form a technical aspect,
look at CARPCS, you cant buy one and get support like you can in the europian countries, they are just ahead of us in certian areas, and have in a way been a good thing for us, as the people, but not as the businesses..
i think though id not want to see the EU eventuallt run just by one, like the republic. :)
just as a side note though, id never want to see the states take part of the EU, they would just manipulate and mucsle there way around just like they do with the UN
Score: 0
|Its a g**d***ed OS holy christ people, Other companies have had years to try to develop something else, If OSX would be released on a standard pc, more people would pick it up or at least try it.
Linux is a farking joke, its been around forever and they still cannot decide what they want, until you can abolish the sudo bs in Linux (maybe there is one, I couldnt find it and I tried fedora, Kubuntu, Freespire, and memphis.) Yes it has synaptics (sp?) but it still to fix certain things I still had to sudo this and sudo that.
EVERY version of Linux I tried also had the same elevated privledges that everyone complains about in Vista for simple tasks, changing the resolution on my monitor, really?
Trying to get sound to work was another issue, there was no simplified way for loading drivers.
Windows may have its issues, but at least you don't have to read manuals and forums all day to get an answer or speak with some elitest that thinks they are better then everyone else yet still live in their mom's basement (Linus did too)
Maybe, there is an easier way, but again the average person does not want to sit and play with code and read forums and waste time on an OS that has not yet proven itself for use in the consumer market.
Another problem with Linux, is trying to convince the average person to use it and has all their files in properitary codecs and tell them yeah since Linux is Open Source not yours do not pass go, sure there is probably some way to do it but again who has time to look these things up and mess with it, when you have fisher price in front of you. Maybe, it is being lazy but at least I have more time to leave and see sunlight.
/let the flaming begin~!
Score: 0
|Ubuntu handles this much better than Vista does. It is far less annoying. I too have tried several different versions of Linux and didn't like most of them until I came across Ubuntu. This is one of the most ready for prime time versions of Linux that I have seen so far. It certainly is far more stable and reliable than Vista is. There is a reason why Dell has chosen it for some of their systems.
Score: 0
|Ubuntu requires you to type the password in every time though (maybe, there is a way to not do this, but again I couldn't find it) I used Fiesty Fawn and had far more issues with it then any of the others, at least everything just worked on the other flavors I tried. Except the issue with the prop codecs and getting a external usb drive to recognize.
What version of Ubuntu is Dell shipping maybe that's my problem?
Score: 0
|Fiesty Fawn? Holy Crap, I've tried Ubuntu as well and it's every but as annoying as has been stated above. People who fantasise that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread have probably been using a meat axe to make toast.
Score: 0
|BTW. Here is a bit of irony.
Novell credits Microsoft for soaring Linux sales
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6210692.html
Score: 0
|Stats are here:
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?
Score: 0
|Soaring sales of a free OS.
Yes, that, I believe, is the exact definition of Irony.
Idiots will always be idiots.
Score: 0
|Mentioning socialism in the article is very ironic because Microsoft itself is stalinist in almost everything the company does.
I fully agree that the consumer must have a free choice, not limited to XP and/or Vista. Microsoft does not have to worry if it makes good operating systems. But if not and the above laws will be implemented Microsoft will be deep in trouble. As a citizen of the EU I demand from the EU Commission to give me the real choice.
Score: 0
|Since socialism and marxism deal with government institutions regulating the market and not business institutions, how can Microsoft be socialistic here? Unless somebody voted Bill into office, that'd be kinda hard, don't you think?
Score: 0
|Sure, I think that the author of the article thought about state interventionism. The problem is that the EU is not a state, so probably better is to describe it as institutional authonomy. BTW, I do not think ir is bad unless no lobby influences the institution.
(A bit off topic: States can have different policy internally and externally. I will give an example - most Americans think that Ronald Reagan was liberal. On the other hand the taxation of Japanese cars and TV sets in the 80ies was up to several hundred percent. What was intended to protect the internal market. It did not - last American company which produced TV sets (Zenith) was closed in 1991.)
As I said before - I do not think that the intended decision of the EU Commission is bad. The customer must have a choice. Today he does not have at all. Even more - I know that Microsoft wanted to convince the governments of some EU states to prohibit by law selling PCs that are:
a) sold by small companies that custom assemble PCs (they are popular in the new EU states). Formally everybody could assemble the computer but the certificationintended to be costly, so every company that builds less that around 500 PCs yearly would have been out of business.
b) sold without operating system (just the opposite of the law described in the article!). I know that the UK, Ireland, Poland and Spain was adviced by Ms to make the move: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/...0000121,39261437,00.htm
What is funny, many Americans express that the EU move would be seen as supporting European companies. The thing is that there are two companies which would probably profit most from the above move - Novell (USA) and Canonical (Rep. of South Africa).
Score: 0
|The best socialists were american do not forget the struggle of the american workers of the 8 hours a day. The rights for women to vote. Struggle of american workers against child slave labour. Many children as young as 10 worked in american cold mines. America is what it is today thanks to the creativity and the struggle of its citizens. Best fair thinking socialists in the 20th century were members of the Chicago Brigade that fought against Franco in the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War. To have universal medical assistance, free education and equal opportunity is not an European aim it is very much part of the American Dream. If allowing more competition is socialism Viva Socialism.
Score: 0
|We are all F'd if everyone thinks like you.
Long live the worker's revolution! Long live Lenin! Wait... All that crap has proved to be a total failure (and unbelievably deadly for it's participants) over and over.
Score: 0
|As it would seem everyone is F'ed now in America because too many think like you. You are confusing socialism with communism. Canada has a socialistic system and we have a much higher quality of life than the average American does and we're not in massive national debt either.
Any system other than feudalism will fail in Russia, even capitalism. Its the culture to blame there.
China is a communist country and they are beating America at its own game now.
Score: 0
|DO YOUR HOMEWORK they were not socialists, those laws were based on moral values of that day and age. Neelie Kroes she is the one to blame for this she is the European Commissioner for Competition. Also she was awarded an honorary doctorate to Microsoft by Bill Gates in 1996 ........ lol. She is a centre-right - conservative - liberal, she is doing her job playng politics by busting the balls of an American Company....
Score: 0
|Canada is far from the Holy Grail. Telling that is better than the US considering that Canadian economy is practically completely based on and tied with the US.. well, it's just a naive statement I'd say.
Score: 0
|Of course Canada isn't paradise but than again it doesn't have to be. We still have a much higher quality of life than a growing number of Americans have.
We're currently seeking other markets to trade with. Canada is a very desirable country to do business with since we are so resource rich. Our import to export ratio is also even and we're paying down our national debt as well.
Score: 0
|Big fish feeds from small fish. When the small fish ceases to exist. The big fish dies. When the big fish dies the small fish multiplies. What is more important to society the big fish like microsoft or a lot of small fish like the ones that create more innovations. I believe that the European Model allows for the big fish and the small fish to survive. Live a let live. Viva US and Viva the capacity of the American people to innovate. After all the electricity was finally made into a reality by an american as well as the world wide web was inventented by an European Sir Timothy John Berners-Lee. Comments of false patriotism are a product of ignorance. We depend from each other for our survival. Suprime loans in the US affect the rest of the world similary if the economy of Brasil or Mexico goes down it will also afect the whole world (including the USA). Capital is not nationalised nowadays.
Score: 0
|This is for all of you communist/anarchist little boys who are using pirated versions of Windows and are crying out from some Eurotrash city for fairness. No one has ever died from having a media player included with their operating system. Microsoft was founded before that abomination called the EU ever existed. No U.S. company is bound by outside regulations created to extort money from them. This is just a shakedown and everyone here knows it.
If you don't like Microsoft products, don't use them. And don't you babies cry about some supposed monopoly BS. Use your beloved Linux and SHUT THE F*** UP.
MS should pull the plug on all of it's products and updates in Europe and see how they like it.
Europe could then look for leadership from Germany, like they did before.
Score: 0
|MS won't pull out because there is to much reveune to be made in Europe.
It would be funny to see what Europe does next if MS actually did pull out.
Score: 0
|MS would more likely simply ignore them. let the EU can continue to raise all the fuss it wants and continue to operate business as usual.
This would eventually force them make a choice: Pull MS products off the shelves and do without, or pull their lower lips back in and quit whining.
Personally, I don't think the EU has the balls to tell MS to take a hike.
Score: 0
|LMOA. You truly are a tool.
Score: 0
|I agree. I feel sorry for those who have been conditioned to hate anything that helps the average person in favor of profit. They're their own worse enemies and the cause of why America is now going down the toilet. Of course they're too blind to see this reality around them.
Score: 0
|"No U.S. company is bound by outside regulations"
They are if they want to do business there.
What part of this don't people here understand?
/I don't think the EU should do it in quite this way myself, but they're doing it nonetheless, so deal with it.
Score: 0
|"By v8cj4f89dj
posted Sep 28, 2007 - 10:52 PM
This is for all of you communist/anarchist little boys who are using pirated versions of Windows and are crying out from some Eurotrash city for fairness. No one has ever died from having a media player included with their operating system. Microsoft was founded before that abomination called the EU ever existed. No U.S. company is bound by outside regulations created to extort money from them. This is just a shakedown and everyone here knows it.
If you don't like Microsoft products, don't use them. And don't you babies cry about some supposed monopoly BS. Use your beloved Linux and SHUT THE F*** UP.
MS should pull the plug on all of it's products and updates in Europe and see how they like it.
Europe could then look for leadership from Germany, like they did before."
What's that song I've got stuck in my head? Oh yeah, "American Idiot".
Score: 0
|v8cj4f89dj
You are a man after my own heart (metaphoricaly speaking).
My friends the sooner we can disenfranchise the downtrodden masses in the (Commie) EU. And, relocate them to Canada & Mexico, and indeed the Antipodes if necessary (hey, outa sight, outa mind). Then we can repopulate the EU with like minded righteous Americans'.
From a purely economic value, it'll be much easier to Nuke those damn Ay Rabs much easier and cheaper delivering from here.
The point must be made, those from the EU posting here oughty have a gentle touch of our warmth and comfort that comes from redition.
You ungracious fools!
Score: 0
|How uniquely clever. I applaud your creativity and originality....
/sarcasm
Score: 0
|I feel sorry for those who have been conditioned to hate anything that helps the average person in favor of profit.
I feel sorry for anyone who puts their belief that the government should be their Nanny over the rights of anyone else.
I cannot fathom why anyone would suggest it is the governments duty to take the rights of others for the sole reason that you don't feel you are being treated fairly. You have *no* "right" to fair treatment.
It is this total lack of personal responsibility that is the problem, not the fact that the US Government won't restrict the rights of one group to appease the sensibilities of another.
Score: 0
|The EC would just continue to fine Microsoft, squeezing as much as it could out of them before Microsoft gave up.
As many people have said, Microsoft isn't run by the kind of nationalist American zealots who are posting anti-EC/EU/Europe trash in this article. They'll continue to trade here so long as there's money to be made.
If they want to leave, that's fine. European companies will fill in the gaps they leave, and Europeans will no longer have to tolerate the stupidity of ignorant Americans who can't wrap their heads around the idea of having to abide by the laws of the EU if you're trading within the EU.
Score: 0
|One of the article's premises of MS being punished for being successful(or capitalistic or American or decadent) is unreasonable attribution. If that was the case, someone like Google would be quaking in its boots.
MS is being throttled for:
1. The way it obtained that success
2. More importantly, the way it still operates-- if nothing else to not lose attained position-- because that has stiffled general technological progress/innovations(let's not argue this point-- it's not an anti-MS rant... it is fact with several noted examples), driven other companies broke- or at least substantially negatively impacted, and not been conducive to price competition.
Score: 0
|this post reeks of too much logic. No one wants to hear that M$ is being "punished" because of how it got to where it is. It is did not get to where it is by fair competition as proven by courts in both the USA and Europe.
Unlike the totally corrupt USA government, Europe has not succumbed to bribes, i mean lobbying, by M$ to not punish them.
Score: 0
|Oh look here is the anti America and MS troll. Are you a bitter Democrate or just angry in general?
Score: 0
|pitdingo: Are you kidding or are you a totally brainwashed noglobal/Left-Wing voter ? Really, you just sound like the classic noglobal anti-Bush anti-Right Wing guy that goes around telling that the US is bad just because the infamous '68 Clinton family gang is not in charge (the same family and the socialist/communist political party that allowed terrorists to invade the US like it never happened before in history).
The EU is among the most corrupted burocracies in the world, indeed. The EU is not even a real state, it's just a way to bribe and get more money from citizens, it actually produces nothing good for the population. That is the truth.
Score: 0
|Gee, he sounds like a decent human being to me. I guess that is everything you're against.... ;-)
Score: 0
|"The EU is not even a real state..."
Who says it is? EU is not, was never intended to be nor will ever be a state. It started as economic organization and transformed into political one. It's not a state. Many Americans perceive EU as US wannabe without even knowing the foundations or purpose of EU.
This proposal and it is just proposal is not anti-American nor Microsoft. It would simply allow customer A CHOICE. Isn't that what democracy is really all about? And the Commission doesn't "own the market". False statements after another.
Score: 0
|"...US is bad just because the infamous '68 Clinton family gang is not in charge (the same family and the socialist/communist political party that allowed terrorists to invade the US like it never happened before in history)."
I think you are a bit confused. The Bush family is the one who had/has extensive dealings with the Bin Laden family. You know the Bush family who has large oil deals in Saudi Arabia? The place where most of the hijackers came from... At least no one died when Clinton lied.
You rant makes no sense and suprise, suprise, has no relation to the topic.
Score: 0
|Anti-American...yep that is me. I wish i had a penny everytime i heard some illiterate fool say that.
I am not a Democrat or a Republican. They are both the same. I will never vote for either of those parties.
Score: 0
|Oh look, another American troll who combines ignorance and stupidity in equal measure.
What is it about EU/EC articles which attracts the nationalist American right-wing zealots?
Noglobal? What the **** is that?
Score: 0
|Actually, a lot of people died when Clinton was in office, except he never entered in war, he just left them to rot.
Score: 0
|care to elaborate?
Score: 0
|"What is it about EU/EC articles which attracts the nationalist American right-wing zealots?"
- Because they're nationalists of the most chauvinist order and can't abide anything that stands in the way of a completely US-dominated world?
(mind you these same people seem determined to ignore the global aspects of most large companies these days and as they attack Europe and/or the EU and insist that this is a USA v the rest type situation they ignore the fact that we all have partners and subsidiaries in each other's territories.
Trying to paint this in simplistic nationalistic terms is just absurd and so outdated......ironically thanks to the global free market - which owes much to the current US version of capitalism - and not an iota of 'socialism' .)
Score: 0
|"EU is not, was never intended to be nor will ever be a state."
- Correct.
I can't think of a single one of the 27 'peoples' in Europe who want to stop being *whatever* (insert 'French', 'German', 'Italian', 'British' 'Greek' etc etc) and lose their national and cultural 'identity' to some undefined idea of being just merely 'European'.
" It started as economic organization and transformed into political one."
- Actually this is 100% wrong.
The EEC & the EU have always been - before everything else - a political entity with a single prime political goal above all others, namely to end the possibility of us ever again embarking on another utterly ruinous pan-European war.
If that isn't a 'political objective' I don't know what is.
"It's not a state."
- Correct.
" Many Americans perceive EU as US wannabe without even knowing the foundations or purpose of EU."
- Personally I think is understandable, because many Americans see the analogy as handy & a help for them to understand what is going on and how it works.
Unfortunately whilst the analogy might help in the most very general terms it really is more hinderance than help when it comes to the nitty-gritty reality of how the 27 sovereign nations states and the EU relate one to the other.
Score: 0
|"Actually this is 100% wrong."
*I wrote long reply but my browser crashed so I'll be concise*
I do agree with you on other points.
I am not totally wrong. Of course, politics is always involved but EU as we know it has began with Treaty of Paris in '51 "Schuman plan". It was founded by 6 western states so its interpretation as a mean to unite whole Europe seems far fetched. It was formed, politically, to prevent members turning against each other by having their steel production under common management. Easier exchange of goods without customs was actually the reason for formation and not because they of some political integration in a sense to form a state (established by EEC). At least that's what I was thought. I am not saying it was just economic reason. It's impossible to not interfere politics, but reasons were mainly economic to my knowledge. It allowed faster rebuilding, allowed economies to grow and so on. In '57 was Rome Treaty which formed EEC which did what I said earlier. It was expansion of Paris Treaty on economic level - common market. So it's I'm not totally wrong as reasons were mainly economic and that process has been more complex. It has several stages. EU as EU is very young. It is mainly political body, but its roots...there was no parliament there and so on. It was based on treaties which had economic purpose and when EU became reality it broaden its effect to political sphere.
People don't understand, and most of us here don't either, how things work. Most of "laws" (I'll use common phrase for all decisions) are up to member states to accept them. There is not much that is being forced. Of course, regulations and laws about things have to be same in states but a lot of freedom is given in how and to what extent recommendations by the Commission are integrated.
This is just a proposal as far as I can see. EU is too bureaucratic to expect this to pass quickly. They couldn't agree what can be called chocolate for 25 years or so. Something that The Commission wants to do cannot be done just like that. It has to go through painful decision-making process and approval. They are trying to libarlize market much in upcoming years. This is nothing anti-US. EU is making great pressure on mobile operators lately to lower roaming rates and thank god for that. This initiative would give people choice what they want preloaded instead of people having to purchase Windows whether they liked it or not. It's not about OS. I'd buy it anyway at the moment, however not having a choice is a pain and not common practice. I certainly wouldn't want to be able to buy any car in any color I want as long as it is black.
Score: 0
|Sure, they made a movie about it too called black hawk down.
Score: 0
|WoW. You Neo-cons sure are grasping for straws. how exactly is Somalia related to Clinton lying? Clinton did not give the go ahead to do that raid depicted in the movie.
LMAO. You are grasping for straws. Bush is the worst US president in history. In 50 years, he will be looked at as the tipping point of American power and influence in the world. Thanks to Bush, the USA is heading to bankruptcy and collapse.
Score: 0
|So not only do you despise our system of government, but you take no part in it whatsoever.
Yeah, a truer patriot there never was...
Score: 0
|Since when is despising your own system of government a sign of a lack of patriotism?
The American system of government is by far the dumbest in use by a Western nation today. Your President is the leader of the executive, the head of state and the commander-in-chief. All of that power, vested in one individual.
It's no wonder that American-style democracy is the most volatile in the world. It's prone to power being hoarded by the President and descending into dictatorships. You also have an Electoral College, despite having a directly elected President. Then there's your ridiculously lax political campaigning laws, which allows blatant lies to be said on television about another person's military service. It also means you're in the pockets of lobbyists from industry and special interest groups such as the pro-Israeli lobby.
In short, your system sucks. Grow a pair and start again from scratch. Look to Europe, your political and social superiors.
Score: 0
|Why did we bother wasting our energy saving your miserable asses in WW2 then? Such political and social superiority surely should have avoided a war altogether?
Score: 0
|"I am not totally wrong. Of course, politics is always involved but EU as we know it has began with Treaty of Paris in '51 "Schuman plan". "
- I didn't mean to offend but it is wholly wrong to say the 'European project'/EEC/EU was ever anything other, than at heart, a political exercise.
The coal and steel union roots you have described are quite correct, of course, but that is merely describing the economic tools used to reach a political objective.
This objective has always been and remains still a Europe completely at peace with itself so as to render the prospect of another catastrophic pan-European conflict utterly unthinkable.
All other considerations were always secondary to this.
......and it has worked and continues to work beautifully.
Score: 0
|"Bush is the worst US president in history."
I wouldn't say the worst, but I would definitely place him in the top-3.
For once, I actually agree with you on something.
I have to say though, when it came to the election (and re-election), a lot of people (including myself) felt the choices we were given were a no-win situation.
Score: 0
|haha exactly, the lesser of two evils perhaps?
why cant we get robin williams up there? just like that movie, uh, man of the year? somone whos funny, can read english, and speak it, and, who says atleast more truth then the other guys...?
Score: 0
|Since when is despising your own system of government a sign of a lack of patriotism?
By definition??
our President is the leader of the executive, the head of state and the commander-in-chief.
Constitutionally bound and placed in check by the two other branches of Government. Before you cry Iraq, please understand that the Legislative Branch gave the go-ahead. That's the check. Once in play, the legislative branch has no constitutional right in commanding the troops (such as a withdrawal).
You have no understanding of how the US government is organized. Please troll elsewhere.
Grow a pair and start again from scratch. Look to Europe, your political and social superiors.
You decry the US for being in turmoil and then point to arguably the second most unstable region of the world (next to the middle-east) as an example of how it should be done. Kudos, man. You just made a complete idiot of yourself.
Score: 0
|LOL! You did not offend me. On contrary, it's nice to see a voice of reason and not being shortsighted. Things aren't always black and white.
It's impossible to separate politics and economics. You can use economics to archive political goals and vice versa. I just disagree with article's "socialism" part. As if it's that term is negative and it's wrongly being equaled with communism.
Btw. I'm not referring to you directly. Just making general observation. What I think and say won't have any effect on how things will develop. I'm just saddened as it being viewed as anti-MS or anti-American.
Score: 0
|I think it is a good idea to avoid throwing around labels like "Socialism", even more so when you don't understand what they mean.
In the 1920s my Grandfather was a card carrying Socialist party member, literally, I still have the membership card. He never knew the IM speak ROTFLMAO, but that is what he would be doing if he could have read Scott's silly attempt to stick the socialist label on a simple matter of business regulation.
When we regulate businesses so that a dry cleaner can't dump perc in the storm sewers it benefits everyone, but it is not socialism. Business regulations are as essential as traffic laws. You might have a Maserati that does 185, but the streets are public property and should be safe for everyone.
Score: 0
|"When we regulate businesses so that a dry cleaner can't dump perc in the storm sewers it benefits everyone, but it is not socialism. Business regulations are as essential as traffic laws. You might have a Maserati that does 185, but the streets are public property and should be safe for everyone."
- Great point well put.
Score: 0
|My turn to LMAO...
Both of your examples involve the parties doing something that presents a danger to others, thus threatening their right to live.
The example in the article above has no effect on the rights of others to live, speak, defend themselves, arm bears, piss in the woods, or choose another god-damned OS.
You compare socialism to governments defense of the rights entitled you by birth. Scott compares socialism to the government control of business.
Now tell me...who's closer to the mark, genius?
Score: 0
|Well put my ass.
Score: 0
|Economic sociopaths can't see the difference between right and wrong in how profit is made. This is why business has to be regulated because of the predatory nature of capitalism. It is mainly because of the removal of these protections in America, by the Bush admin, that America is now going down the toilet.
Score: 0
|Yes, you are.
Score: 0
|pretty much hit the nail on the head there.
Score: 0
|A Government that does not regulate business will not last long. Think about lead paint on children's toys or health department inspections of restaurants.
If you want to know what socialism really looks like find a government that calls itself socialist, like Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. They don't encourage competition or diversity, instead corporations are nationalized and the competition is put out of business or run out of the country.
Score: 0
|I have absolutely nothing against making an honest profit. More power to those who do this, but there are far too Enron-type companies out there who value profit over EVERYTHING else to the point of insanity with no regard of the damage they are doing to everyone else.
Score: 0
|"A Government that does not regulate business will not last long. Think about lead paint on children's toys or health department inspections of restaurants.
Surely you understand the difference between commerce with foreign nations and trade among the states? Government shouldn't regulate business, but unfortunately for America, it does.
Score: 0
|Economic sociopaths can't see the difference between right and wrong in how profit is made. This is why business has to be regulated because of the predatory nature of capitalism.
Economic sociopaths exist because we as consumers buy their services, and that is OUR problem, not the government's. However, most businesses that do thrive thrive because we continue to purchase from them. In the 1800's this was evident in America, and it worked until oil companies became monopolistic.
My theory is that the very acquisition of one company by another is a dis-service to consumers, as it is always done for one group of head-hauncho's to take advantage of the others at the parent companys' expense. This is where capitalism failed--until companies began merging, government regulation was not needed.
Then again I'm sided with the less than 50% group, and in mob rule, that means my opinion loses. This is exactly why Democracy does not work, and is exactly why America was founded as a "Democratic Republic", and not a true Democracy.
Score: 0
|Genius.
Lead paint presents a clear and present danger. Does Windows? Nope.
Nice try.
You do understand the difference, right?
Score: 0
|*laughing*
Whatever. You might want to look in to having that tinfoil hat loosened a bit.
Score: 0
|Are you really that stupid?
Enron broke laws. That's why they got busted. Are you seriously trying to equate Microsoft to Enron?
Score: 0
|as M$ broke the anti-trust laws. Except bribery, i mean "Lobbying", on the part of M$ saw to it that they did not get punished.
Score: 0
|Why exactly shouldn't government control business? Business shouldn't function to the detriment of society.
If some profit should be lost along the way, who gives a ****? "Socialist" Britain has done very well, despite strongly regulating business.
Score: 0
|People expect their governments to regulate business not just to protect lives and health but for many other mundane and simple things. I chose examples that would clearly show how it is important for every government, even libertarian or fascist, to impose regulations on business.
Truth in advertising, accurate bookkeeping, occupational licensing, and anti-trust enforcement are not such dramatic examples, but are all necessary business regulations, and have nothing to do with socialism.
Score: 0
|Two completely different issues.
Plus part of the conviction was overturned and was settled in 2001.
Again, at that time which was after 95 and 98 came out, the only thing it appears MS did was killing Netscape. As MS has been around since 1981 as the dominant on the pc platform.
lobbying? that has to do more with the policitian's interests.
Score: 0
|wow, typical M$ drone with a selective memory. DrDOS? Forced bundling of Windows on PC's? and many more...
Score: 0
|Typical troll rather then explaining anything you resort to insults, it gives you no creditability whatsoever, you sound like A child and will continue to be treated as one using childish terms as drone and M$.
Please elaborate on my selective memory, maybe I am getting old in my age.
Forced bundling, what else would have been put on the PC, there was nothing else, which was why it (most likely) settled.
Windows has existed for quite a long time, even before 95 came out there was still no OS dominant in the PC market.
There was also no bundling for windows 3.1 either. The only thing that I can see (again, correct me where I am wrong) was MS destroyed netscape by offering their browser free.
Score: 0
|not going to waste my time with a M$ drone troll. go read on Wikipedia for the facts
Score: 0
|LOL @ m$ drone, you really cannot read at all can you.
Score: 0
|Why exactly shouldn't government control business? Business shouldn't function to the detriment of society.
And government should not make laws restricting the rights of others to trade freely unless it violates the rights of others. :)
Score: 0
|...and exactly where does forcing Manufacturers to sell a product they do not want to sell enter into any of the examples you just gave??
Advertising? Nope.
Bookkeeping? Nope.
Occupational Licensing? nope.
Anti-Trust? Nope.
I know you will argue the anti-trust bit, but it is like going after the the garden to stop the rabbit form eating the carrots. You're targeting the wrong folks.
Score: 0
|as M$ broke the anti-trust laws.
How is that even relevant? It's 2007. You keep using this line. Do you not have anything relevant to the here and now, or are you just that brain-dead?
Score: 0
|The auto industry has a long history of needing to be forced to make products that the people of the US really want them to make. Emissions targets, airbags, even seat belts have been called meddlesome anti-business goverment regulation. Without business regulations you might be driving a car that is as safe, clean, and efficient as a 1970's Pinto.
Since you couldn't draw a conclusion if was sitting naked in your living room here a technology example. Long distance carriers are required to sell wholesale access. There are many others but I tire of thinking for you.
Score: 0
|today, pc_tool gained my favor.
i conqouer, i agree with those ideals, and views from britans policies, but, i have to state the same as pc_tool, this is not on the same grounds..
windows wont kill you and faster or slower then linux, or apple...
Score: 0
|The auto industry has a long history of needing to be forced to make products that the people of the US really want them to make. Emissions targets, airbags, even seat belts have been called meddlesome anti-business goverment regulation. Without business regulations you might be driving a car that is as safe, clean, and efficient as a 1970's Pinto.
And the problem with that? If I chose to drive one, I should be able to, if I want to build one, why should I not be able to?
Who would I be hurting by not wearing a seatbelt? Or not using a safety seat? Or driving without an airbag? No-one but myself.
Again, your examples are flawed. You bring up public safety issues (arguable at best). What in God's name makes that at all relevant to the current issue with PC manufacturers? How is forcing them to sell bare PCs going to make anyone safe?
Here, I'll make it easy for you:
Show me *one* market that has been forced to sell a product in a certain way that is *not* due of safety concerns, a public utility, or vital infrastructure. Just one. And then tell me what they did that violated the rights of others or presented a danger. Then tell me what the PC industry did to deserve this regulation.
You can't. This is a roundabout way to *try* and punish Microsoft, yet it targets the PC retail industry, wholly undeserving of such actions.
Score: 0
|The EU and I believe the PC standard is vital infrastructure that needs to have a healthy market with many diverse competitors.
Score: 0
|So...
You got nothing?
Okay. We'll drop that issue.
Tell me how then, this will help "diversify the market".
Are you under the impression that people will buy these things naked? You know if this succeeds at all, the "naked" systems will be buried and will not be advertised, right? Nothing will change. You know this. If you have a single brain cell, it's patently obvious what will happen.
So I gotta ask.... What's the point?
Score: 0
|go read on Wikipedia for the facts
Aha, wikipedia is where you get the facts :D
Score: 0
|God help you if you are a success. Show me an alternative to Windows which actually works (no not you Linux!)as good as it does for most people? If you don't like it you can go the Mac route, or any other flavor of o/s if you can find support for it. Why don't some of you geniuses fire up your exotic boxes and invent something as good, or better than Windows? Otherwise stop harping about monopolies, M$, etc etc. If the Eurotrash don't want it, let them eat cake as far as I'm concerned.
Score: 0
|"God help you if you are a success"
- This has nothing to do with attacking 'success'.
It has everything to do with opening up markets to fair and reasonable competition and moving away from the various little strategies companies use to 'rig' matters in their own favour.
Microsoft will undoubtedly continue to be the hugely successful company it is but they will just not have it quite as easy, that is all.
If people want to buy their products then that's perfectly fine, no one is going to try and stop that with these measures, but people will be making an active free choice and not just be being pushed into accepting 'packages' of goods they might not other wise have chosen for themselves.
I'm just amazed at how greater free choices in this here (particularly from the US contributors) are being portrayed as 'socialist' and anti free-market and an attack on the 'successful' and closed less free markets are supposedly 'better'.
Score: 0
|Windows is definitely NOT the best OS out there. As I've stated before it was the unfair tactic of Gates including a clause in his early contracts requiring PC manufacturers to pay a royalty on EACH PC they made whether it had a copy of Windows on it or not.
Score: 0
|The Ubuntu box i am posting this on "actually works". But what do you know, you are just a M$ drone.
Score: 0
|"Actually working" means it boots up I guess, and you can post another stupid irrelevant point here, after that all bets are off. If I'm an M$ drone what does that make you, a linux drongo?
Score: 0
|Nobody said it was, but it's the most successful in terms of the number of people using it. If Gates managed that bit of outrage in the beginning,, it was a marketing coup that is unlikely to fly today.
Score: 0
|I agree with you, and I wish this would apply to phone companies, cable providers etc. Talk about forcing people to buy stuff they don't need.
My point is if people don't like Windows they have a choice. How hard is it to install any o/s on a blank hard drive?
Score: 0
|It is only "successful" because Gates cheated. If the average user knew that they had a choice it would have been a completely different story altogether. As it is now, M$ still has to cheat to stay on top. They really haven't earned this success. What the Gates are doing now with their wealth is still no excuse to justify the means it was acquired by.
Score: 0
|Harder than you think. To most people a computer is a toaster. You put something in and you get something out. M$ took advantage of this as well.
http://rinkworks.com/stupid/
Score: 0
|He has a hate obession he'll grow up some day.
Score: 0
|It doesn't "always" work is the point, Linux has not proven itself for desktop use yet.
You may not have a problem, but countless others do.
Linux does not like properitary codecs (its stated in every distro, except freespire makes it easier but its still not completely consumer ready) Until, you can do everything you need to without EVER having to go into terminal it will never fly.
Score: 0
|That's why we've got "The Video Professor".
Score: 0
|What choice?
Even when 3.1 was out Windows was still easier to use.
Who was going to fight them?
Apple only works on apple
Linux was nowhere near consumer friendly.
OS/2?
May have been better but no one used it and this was when it was 286 machines with stacker! woot! There was no IE back then (from what I can remember)
95 came out and people ohhhed and ahhhed over it, no one else had the rights.
IF xerox would have won, neither apple nor MS may exist in the form they are in. Defintely not Linux as most Linux distros mimic the Windows gui.
Score: 0
|As I recall in the early days of PCs in the mid eighties there were a number choices. What happened to the Amiga and Atari, to name two? You can't blame Bill Gates for wiping them off the map? I believe it's called working with developers, marketing, and giving the public what (they think) they want and can, in this case, use easily. However, no doubt you can enlighten us to how Microsoft monopolized the market so as to kill off the competition, so go ahead.
Score: 0
|I can agree there. Back around 1996-97 I installed Slackware... And only had issues with it on my system. Then later on, I tried installing Mandrake Linux (The most 'user friendly' linux install at the time) and it wouldn't even work. In fact, the thing corrupted itself on install.
Now, if these were my 'choices'... I don't think very highly of them. Not only were the interfaces crap, they were dep hell and XWindows/etc crashed like mad.
No thanks, I'll stick with my Windows box... And of course use my FreeBSD boxes for their best use... A server.
Score: 0
|Try Ubuntu and come back and say that....
I haven't had any trouble playing any movie or audio files on mine and I didn't have to use the terminal either.
Score: 0
|Their days were numbered even before the PC became popular and they were mainly seen as just game machines.
When it came to the PC market M$ monopolized it by forcing manufacturers to pay, who wanted to put Windows on their systems, a royalty on each system whether it had a copy of Windows or not. People even thought that all computers were Windows computers. They didn't know that they could have had a choice. As I had said, a computer was a toaster to them.
Score: 0
|I did try ubuntu and it was just a mess like all the others, maybe there is a specific version I need to try? or Maybe Kubuntu is entirely different? (I thought the only difference was it was just with a kde desktop)
Score: 0
|Windows does not "always" work is the point, Windows has not proven itself for desktop use yet.
You may not have a problem, but countless others do.
Windows is full of properitary codecs (its stated in every version, except some of the cheaper versions don't let you access _your_ content without expensive upgrades os software purchases, but its still not completely consumer ready) Until, you can do everything you need to without EVER having to go into pocket book every ten minutes it will never fly.
Score: 0
|People say the same thing about Vista.
Score: 0
|I did grow up and realize i am pissing money away on M$ crapware. So i installed Ubuntu and found out how simple and powerful Linux is. Just need to get the games now. There is _zero_ reason otherwise to use that M$ crapware.
Score: 0
|Windows DOES always work, if something goes wrong a trained monkey can fix it. You can throw ANYTHING you want at it and it will work, Linux not so much.
Wow talking about being a troll, not a single thing you said was a fact.
LOL @ pocketbook, Apple charges you for service packs, 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4
Where are these versions of windows that don't play certain files at?
You missed the point as usual, most people who are using Windows now are using prop codecs, Linux does not support them as they don't have the licensing for it.
If Linux ever does make it out as a viable alternative for the desktop, you honestly believe it will stay free forever? You are dreaming...
It will start with paid support, after they realize people will pay for support, people will pay to use it. Or it will be bundled with advertisements.
Score: 0
|Even a simple question, you still troll, thanks for nothing asshat.
Score: 0
|"Windows DOES always work, if something goes wrong a trained monkey can fix it."
LMAO. That is one of the funniest things i have ever heard. You so far removed from reality it is absurd. I guess that reinstall i had to do last weekend on my mom's computer was beacuse Windows DOES always work? LMAO.
I lost track of how friends computers i have had to "fix" beacuse of all the problems with Windows. LMAO.
Of course Linux does not have licensing for the garbage proprietary M$ formats. That is the whole point of open source and open standards. I _don't_ want to pay a vendor for access to _my_ content.
I realize you are totally brainwashed by M$ and can not live without the mothership (hence the name M$ drone). Maybe someday, you will wake up and free yourself from the tyranny.
So the new FUD tactic is to say Linux will not be free forever so you might as well send all your money to Redmond? LMAO.
Score: 0
|Well, Vista is total crap. That is a fact. Hardly a troll post, unlike yours which said Ubuntu is a "mess".
Score: 0
|Yeah i remember trying to get Windows 3.0 to run. LOL. crash, crash, crash. Not to mention the interface was horrible.
Then came 3.11 and it still did not work. I remember finally getting it to run and then i installed the Visual C++ compiler. That would not even run. It would hang every time.
So i had a friend of mine bring over Slackware. he installed it. Yes, it was a bit painful to get everything working...no less than Windows 3.11 and DOS.
GCC worked flawlessly. As did my Ada and Java compilers. Perl was just coming around too.
The funniest part is Vista is just as horrible as 3.11 was. Drivers did not work. Performance was horrid.
Score: 0
|Once again insults, can you speak like an adult EVER?
So, its windows fault that your friends broke something?
Its also windows fault your mom had to have something fixed?
Hate to break it to you but the most common cause for a reinstall is user error, This may come as a shock, but you can crash Linux and OSX and GASP! They sometimes need to be reinstalled!
Maybe I should have said "When using Windows properly and not downloading everything in sight it just works"
mp3, mpg and avi are not windows prop codecs, sorry.
Again, drone? I said I use OSX and MS so drone, where?
I also stated I used Linux and its not my cup of tea. I want an OS where I turn it on and it works, if I need a program I can download damn near anything I want or buy and it will work. I don't have to worry about a piece of hardware not working.
Score: 0
|You have selective reading apparently as I said the version I installed was a mess, then I asked maybe there is a better version, but thanks again for proving my point.
Vista is total crap is an opinion, others share this opinion, most of these others have never even used Vista they just follow the /. crew. There is no fact there as there are lots of people who are having no problems and like it, which I am sure you will call them drones because they like something they have to pay for.
Score: 0
|You can't fault MS for drivers, performance was an issue in the beginning there's been an update since then which has helped it considerably.
Score: 0
|Your troll is weaksauce. Windows is horrible. I never said Linux or OSX never crashes. You are the one which said windows ALWAYS works.
Of course it is not M$ fault their OS is horribly written. Of course it is not M$ fault that simply browsing the web can result in your machine being filled with keyloggers, spyware, malware, and viruses.
Score: 0
|I would say it is a fact. Me neighbor got a new Dell laptop with Vista and i had to remove it and install XP.
Vista is a mess. I know first hand. It is _horrible_.
I guess your M$ 360 bricked and is out for repair since you are posting so much on here?
Score: 0
|Except, I don't have an xbox360
Score: 0
|whoa! linux already charges for many of the distributions, some times more then windows...
did you know when windows releases a new OS, they offer free support for a while... and when stuff like windows xp SP2 issues with ipv6 caused soo much chaos, they offfered free support...
linux, for support is quite a bit of money, even of the OS is free... reguardless of how good or how bad the support is...its alot of money for users...
with windows, as long as you have internet access, you can find from microsoft directly, or a third party support, free, the answers, and its clear with vivid instructions...
linux, i have yet to see this..
i have used windows, since 3.1, i have used dos, i have used mac 9 and 10.x, i have used red hat, suse, and now i am playing with ubuntu... but windows XP , not VIsta, XP is my choice right now...for compatability..
Score: 0
|ok like seriously...
did you know they have to have labels on s***s now that states to iron please remove clothes before ironing..
becasue some asshat ironed it while wearing it.. does that mean its the irons fault? or the clothes? no its the user... how do you fix that?
thats the issues with both softwares.. linux and windows.. but whats worse? os its harder to do the same tihngs in linux as it is in windows..
Score: 0
|ok paint me a picture as to where linux would be today, without windows or microsoft?
do you not think that maybe they have in a way helped each other by having compititon?
Score: 0
|monopolized against who? linux back then?
there was no compeeting os back then!
Score: 0
|as i stated, wich no one gets yet...
if windows is not forced on users per se... for a reduced cost.. and these individuals are used to windows, they will stay with windows, and now windows.. will be sold after market, for more money per licence key, wich means, more money to microsoft.
how will this harm microsoft?
Score: 0
|um when your phone bill states, 50 cents is billed for the use of 911 numbers? is that not the same thing? you cant cancel that.. :S
Score: 0
|Funnier thing is that I know of maybe 3 "crashes" that can occurr on Windows 3.x systems, and the only driver problems were problems with missing drivers. 3.x has no plug and play.
It sounds like you've never used Windows 3.0, but perhaps I'm just being too hastey...how did it crash, I wonder? What did it look like? Only crash I remember is:
"Stop: This program has violated a system integrity due to an invalid excecution error and will be terminated. Quit all applications, quit Windows, and restart your computer."
My problem with Visual C++ on Windows 3.1 was that @#$%ed "out of __far heap space" error when compiling an AppWizzard project. Took over 20 megs of swap file to do that, and I only had 10MB of free space on my old 203MB hard drive :D
Even with just 4MB of RAM Visual C++ pro 1.0 ran fine on my old 80486 PC...that upgrade to 8MB of RAM really helped though, since I didn't have to keep running cl.exe from DOS mode and could use the Visual Workbench's compiler straight from Windows.
Wow, time flies...
Score: 0
|The American culture and language were born in Europe, and many inventions came also from the "old continent". In 1929 the "New Deal" saved the american economy, and it was a clear intervention of the state in the economy. IMHO it is not a matter of socialism against capitalism, but of preserving the freedom to choose the OS that the user wants in a new computer. BTW in this moment customers in EU or in America are almost compelled to buy the giant Vista with its improved "security measures", even when they only need a simple home computer not as a media center but only with a firewall to run MSOffice and IE. EU may react in this field the same way that Mercedes has already reacted.
Score: 0
|"...in this moment customers in EU or in America are almost compelled to buy the giant Vista..."
You mean they do not have the freedom to build their own machines, or purchase from a vendor that offers non-Windows solutions?
Score: 0
|Sorry, I say "almost". I'm talking about the average buyer, with only a slight idea of what a computer is. This cannot be applied to geeks.
Score: 0
|The "average buyer" that is "compelled" to buy Vista, would have no clue how to install Vista, let alone a flavor of Linux.
Score: 0
|I am failing to see why it is Microsoft's fault they are the dominant player in the non-Apple PC market?
Microsofts OSs suck (just read the comments).
They charge a ridiculous amount of money for their OSs.
There are hundreds of free alternatives available (Linux).
PC manufacturers have begun offering Linux preinstalled but apparently few people are asking for it.
What more should Microsoft do to lose market share?
No preinstalled OSs on PCs will cost manufacturers and consumers more money. Software companies won't pay Dell to preinstall their software because without an OS they won't be able to. Consumers will be paying full price for Windows instead of a discounted volume price so MS will be making more money.
Why is this a good idea?
Score: 0
|"No preinstalled OSs on PCs will cost manufacturers and consumers more money".
- Well that is just the standard threat every monopolist uses.
I'm rather amazed to see people (I'm assuming most here are Americans) arguing against a more open and free market and in support of a more closed market dominated by corporations copper-fastened into their monopoly positions.
That's about as anti-free market as it can get.
Score: 0
|I am all for open and free markets. How would forbidding preinstalled OSs contribute to that?
What factors will come into play to offset the increases cited?
Score: 0
|We're not arguing against an open and free market. We're arguing against government control over business.
There's a HUGE difference. Government controlled business is a bit *less* free market than what we currently have, thankyouverymuch.
Score: 0
|A free market can't exist for long WITHOUT government regulations. The goal of capitalism is not to compete, but to dominate the market.
I'm getting a big laugh here. All of those so-called "patriots" who are constantly whining about freedom and rights are the first ones to want to do away with them when the rights and freedoms of the average person inconveniences them.
Score: 0
|Blame the 45 years of the Cold War and the massive damage it had done on the American society. So much so that in the 1st world nations America ranks near, or at the bottom when it comes to quality of life for its average citizens.
They actually believe that they're the best country in the world to live in cause of their "Freedom"(tm). Well, freedom is like rope. Get enough of it and you can hang yourself.
Score: 0
|So naive. How much do you think you would be "renting" your telephone for if the government did not break up AT&T?
Do you think there would be an internet? Do you think there would have ever been a tape recorder, VHS, recordable DVD, recordable Blu-Ray? I could go on all day.
Score: 0
|sjc001: You are confusing capitalism with communism. Communism main goal is to dominate on everything and it's exactly what the communistic regime in China is doing by using a disorted capitalism vision along with the help of Left-Wing people worldwide.
Score: 0
|No. You're the confused one here.
Communism is for all whereas capitalism is just for a very few... You're thinking of Stalinism. But we're not actually speaking about communism either. Both are two extremes. Canada has successfully merge both socialism and capitalism into a system that works that is called Socialistic-Capitalism.
You libertopians have a very skewed view of the world.
Score: 0
|I could go on all day.
...with lame-ass examples that don't even come close to being relevant? I bet you could...
Phone: Public utility. Computers do not fall under that category.
tape recorder, VHS, recordable DVD, recordable Blu-Ray?
??? Are you high?? These are all consumer devices, that while they must meet certain standards, the companies behind them are not regulated by the gov to the extent the EC is attempting to Control Microsoft.
Naive? No, just not full of crap like you.
Score: 0
|A free market can't exist for long WITHOUT government regulations. The goal of capitalism is not to compete, but to dominate the market.
Regarding public utilities, it is true that there needs to be government regulation, and of course some oversight is necessary for any market. This in no way implies that the level of regulation applied to public utilities should *ever* be applied to the rest of the market.
Have you ever taken a course in Economics?
All of those so-called "patriots" who are constantly whining about freedom and rights are the first ones to want to do away with them when the rights and freedoms of the average person inconveniences them.
That was just stupid. What rights or freedoms are being taken from you by Microsoft? Name one. Please keep in mind that you do not have the right to be treated fairly or to be protected from stupid choices on your part.
What right does anyone have to limit the rights of Microsoft when they have not taken any rights form you or presented a clear and present danger to anyone?
Score: 0
|you telling me i am off topic. Dude, you realize my post made an a** out of you so now you are just ranting.
We were talking about government regulation of buisness and you said the government should not be involved at all. So i pointed out how different the world would be if there was no government involved.
There would be a single phone company, AT&T, (thanks to the Bush admin, we are almost back to that). back in the day, you had to rent your phone from AT&T. there was no other way to get a telephone. the government stepped in and the rest is history.
Score: 0
|You clearly have never taken a course in Economics.
Standard Oil, Northern Securities Company, etc... you certainly would have studied these at some point.
Score: 0
|Except you missed the point as the computer is not a public utility.
Its a tool such as a hammer or screwdriver.
Score: 0
|"How would forbidding preinstalled OSs contribute to that?"
- Well clearly the idea is that it ought to remove the current situation where there is effectively a defacto automatic lockout for almost all competitors.
By freeing the market up and offering people greater choice (through actively making choices) this ought to encourage more competition thereby driving prices down.
Like Apple Microsoft are free to make their own computers with their own software installed.
But when it comes to the whole market for PCs generally it is (IMO quite correctly) the EU's collective decided view that as things stand there is a distinct lack of competition which is harming the consumers interests.
Score: 0
|Thanks for the history lesson.
Care to tell us all how that is at *all* relevant to the current situation?
Oh, that's right, you can't argue the relevant facts without bringing up wildly unrelated BS in some poor attempt to make yourself look semi-intelligent.
Kind of like the MS anti-trust crap from 6+ years ago.
Score: 0
|*sigh*
Yes, in fact. And realized that these are, again, completely unrelated industries. That's also an entirely different topic. Care to take a guess as to why your gas prices are so high?
The government regulates Big Oil because it makes them rich.
Score: 0
|You know, "back in the day" you had to rent your archaic, only one model, phone from the government in the UK. IIRC, the government bureaucracy that was the British phone system was privatized because the government was admittedly incompetent at providing a quality service.
Score: 0
|how can you state hundreds?
are you comparing this to windows xp? or windows vista?
and if so are you stating the alternitives are other versions of windows?
to me you cant say, linux as hundreds, you could state FREEBSD, solaris, ubuntu, redhad, suse, etc...but i dont think they are hundreds, and if you state all those, you have to conclude that there are many versions of windows in that same catigory, and you cant forget stuff like reactos, wich is windows based!
without windows, linux would not be where it is today.
Score: 0
|just like a screw driver, thats a very good point, guess what made those boys what they are today? the consumers! not the government, phillips, and robertson, etc, not government!
Score: 0
|hehe, well ill have to say, that pc_tool is right, how does oil, a goverment controlled money machine, that the USA goes to war for, have anything to do with what operating system your pc comes with..?
look at gas, as pc_tool said, middle of the week, gas is low price, near weekend, gas is high? why? omfg, did we or are we running low? omfg, what can we do? oh, wait, next week, durring the week, its low again...
and hmm, well, why the flux in the prices? well one of two things, want to stop people from using the gas, frivilously, or, want to make the most out of people using it frivolusly...
but the funny thing is, my days off ate thursday and friday, i work sat and sun, because well, thats how the world is spinning, places open 24/7 somone gotta work that, thats why now gas prices are starting to just stay high..
reguardless, do you think the guy pumping the oil, makes the prices?
Score: 0
|Canada has successfully merge both socialism and capitalism into a system that works that is called Socialistic-Capitalism.
As A Canadian and Government Worker I can Say that All Levels of Government Have Not successfully merge both socialism and capitalism. Is our system better than the US? In someways it is.
Is it better than some European systems? Some yes and No. Norway & Sweden Far better than Canada, But again you have to look at their Taxes to see why.
Score: 0
|Very few high tech products have been invented, developed, and brought to the world market by the EU and yet now that all of these things are mature, they want to control them. I say get off your snobby a$$es and invent, develop, and market something.
Score: 0
|"Very few high tech products have been invented, developed, and brought to the world market by the EU"
- Naaa mate, just the sovereign nation state countries that are the EU's membership, eh?
" yet now that all of these things are mature, they want to control them."
- No, like every other nation or trading group we have the right to determine the rules of trade within our territories.
No-one is forced to trade with us.
"I say get off your snobby a$$es and invent, develop, and market something."
- .......and I'd say stop trying to paint these highly complex matters of international law and business in simplistic & crassly absurd chauvinistic terms.
Given the global nature of many of the worlds companies and corporations there is every likelihood that a lot of this will be 'pointed at' EU-based corporations and companies' international partners and trading 'arms'.
Jingoistic flag-waving really is inappropriate and to dumb this issue down to a laughable degree.
Score: 0
|"No, like every other nation or trading group we have the right to determine the rules of trade within our territories.
No-one is forced to trade with us."
Wow, the US tried arguing that in front of the WTO concerning Antigua. Didn't get them very far.
Score: 0
|Go away, troll
Score: 0
|"the US tried arguing that in front of the WTO concerning Antigua".
- USA v Antigua?
Is that the gambling case?
Surely the point there was that the USA allowed domestic companys to trade in the US but froze out foreign competitors from the US domestic market (which is surely a clear breach of the GATT trading rules)?
Score: 0
|What a STUPID comment! Seriously, if you don't have anything intelligent to say, don't say anything at all!
Score: 0
|I don't understand... how exactly is it "socialism" if the EU says you can't sell an OS on a computer? It's not a fair market now, so they're tossing around ideas to make things fair. I don't agree that it's a *good* idea, but regulation != socialism.
In the USA, we've deregulated lots of things, and not all of it has gone well. The EU have deregulated a few things and have seen limited successes (mobile phones!). But in the past 13 years, Microsoft have sat in a very comfortable position. The result has been the turd laid before us called Vista.
The fact is that if you're going to dominate your market UNFAIRLY thus that you're in a monopolistic position, and governments generally can't respond in time because it's not an infrastructure, what do you want? There are two crimes, really:
1) Microsoft is requiring the average consumer to consume Vista, to their detriment.
2) No government has coerced Apple into selling its OSX to the non-Apple-hardware users.
These two abominations have eliminated OS competition in the world, and the result is a global slowdown of productivity. Think about it this way; if the internet is 8% of electricity usage, and Vista is using more resources and thus electricity, you could say it's a resource imperative to improve future OSs.
No, the fact is that the USA allowed Microsoft to become a monopoly, and that is anti-capitalism. Accusing the EU of having a spine shows from where the argument originates.
Score: 0
|Wow this was a poorly thought out and written article, but then I've read this type of comment before on Betanews lol
Fortunately there's some actual reports out there who do write good articles with ALL the information.
My thoughts are never count Microsoft out, too much at stake. I don't know what they will do, a new business model or whatever but don't count them out.
There's so many unknowns in what is happening here that I really don't know what is going to happen. But there's a few things I do know, it's going to happen so as a result I'm really interested in what this will all mean in the near and far future, and not just for Microsoft but other large companies operating in the EU.
Score: 0
|As a forum this is, as long as the article is, and knowing that there are people that may be more keen on the background of this topic more than i am, i will request everyone to share they point of view of WHY the EU is doing this and what are the interests behind. fanboys and kids who dream of a fantastic world, please stay out of the thread. thank you.
Score: 0
|"i will request everyone to share they point of view of WHY the EU is doing this and what are the interests behind."
- Well, ok, here's my 2 pennies.
As a citizen of the EU I see this as a natural extension of the type of capitalism we have here
(it is my view that it is a deception to imagine only one version exists, US capitalism differs to European which differs from Japanese etc etc).
In Europe we still hold to the values of 'the social contract' where all the elements in our society ought to pay meaningful regard to each other because it is self-evidently in all of our interests to do so.
The whole point of the EU is that never again will narrow competitive national economies push us in Europe towards dispute, conflicts and outright war and the trans-European 'social contract' is a major element of this.
In practise it's a little 'looser' than this sounds but it is there and it does have real meaning.
That's why (although we absolutely are capitalist economies) we still have (to US eyes) 'socialist' tendencies.
It is not actually 'socialism' at all, even if it is not classic laissez fair capitalism.
We are quite determined that our market will operate within sovereign nation states (and the EU collective as a whole) with a distinct social responsibility & dimension.
We have had monopolies (private and public sector) in our recent history and we have come to mean it when we say we believe a market as genuinely open and free as we can reasonably make it is preferable.
But tbh I really do not understand what on earth is supposed to be in the least bit 'socialist' about attempting to pressurise the world's huge trans-national global corporations to enable more open and 'free' markets to operate.
Score: 0
|If OEMShave to stop selling an OS, Windows, on their PCs then Apple should also be forced to stop selling their OS with their Machines.
Score: 0
|"If OEMS have to stop selling an OS, Windows, on their PCs then Apple should also be forced to stop selling their OS with their Machines."
- Hang on, that's not really the issue here.
Apple make their own computers and so have every right to sell them with their proprietary OS.
If Microsoft made their own PCs they'd have that right too.
Score: 0
|It is though because what OS are they going to use on a standard pc?
Its either Linux or Windows.
What the EU is proposing I sorta can see what they are trying to do but its going to fail.
PC manufacturers will still charge the same amt whether the OS is included or not so I see no benefit of this.
Dell is doing it with Linux but you still pay the same price as a Windows box.
The average consumer will shun Linux especially if it requires use of terminal. (I have yet to find a linux distro that its point and click for EVERYTHING.)
Score: 0
|if they do it to one they have to do it to all. MSFT has to offer a version of Windows without a media player, so should Linux and Apple. Other wise they are just playing favoritism.
Score: 0
|I say MS should stop selling and supporting everything in the EU immediately.
Let the companies founder for a few months and when they scream bloody murder at the heads of the EU - maybe then the EU will pull their heads from their nether regions and wake up.
Just my opinion.
Score: 0
|Yay, yet another imperialistic kid with no idea how a business is run.
Look, if MS did that their shareholders would *crucify* them, not to mention any attempt at blackmail of this type would ensure the EU *really* bring down the hammer on Microsoft. All they've had so far is, despite their repeated wailing, a slap on the wrist. If they desire corporal punishment instead they can make the hollow threat you've suggested.
Score: 0
|True M$'s shareholder would get mad. But M$ should stop doing business in EU. And disable ALL of there products in the EU remotely! This would for sure help the Dollar get stronger. The EU is protectionist when it comes to companies in the EU. That needs to be stopped. Let them use Linux or OSx. (which came for the US also..)
Score: 0
|"The EU is protectionist when it comes to companies in the EU."
- If you want to 'flag-wave' and talk fanboy BS then go ahead.
The facts are that the WTO regularly deals with disputes regarding protectionism from both the USA and the EU.
Pretending that only the EU has strategic industries it will protect is just delusion and wholly false.
We're not giving up our advanced technology industries anymore than you guys are.
But that is not to say we cant have more open and free markets.
Score: 0
|How would it help the Dollar if a US company stopped selling to a huge market? I for one would much rather buy a PC without any OS installed, not because I don’t like Microsoft but because I would like to choose what I put on my PC and not have to pay for an OS I wouldn’t be using
Score: 0
|All their trying to do out of MSFT is an example, everybody complaints about MSFT monopoly so no problem let all these open source companies come through and they did and was happen over the years they have vanished and disappeared and only the dominant ones are still around, competition for what other OS's that are useless, what happens is that they want to control how people make money thats all, perfect example the computer companies their is so much open market that companies like emachines and gateway exist companies that suck and sell garbage systems to users that don't work and that people waste their money on. The fact that they want companies to sell their computer systems without OS's already pre-installed make no sense cause thats why their has been so many compatibility problems before in the past and all their doing is making companies to make a step back into inovation to whereas companies now can suggest to you was works best with your system and can offer support. MSFT RULES
Score: 0
|Disable their products? That would be grounds to take action against them for a criminal act like that. It could be said that M$ doing this sort of thing could be considered an act of terrorism.
You may not realize this, but the US imports far more than it exports now. I think its 2 to 1 in favor of importation. In fact the US now imports more food than it produces for itself. The US needs the rest of the world more than the rest of the world needs the US. We can always find other markets if need be.
Score: 0
|I can't tell if you are stupid, sarcastic or both. Companies can use OSX but don't want to upgrade all their pcs. Linux has not been proven on the desktop.
It would be nice if Apple allowed osx to be run on any pc but it will never happen as soon as it does apple will not have control over it and they will be in the same situation as MS.
MS leaving the EU is nice in theory, but would destroy MS and would be a stupid decision.
Score: 0
|Microsoft will only pull out of Europe when idiots like you are tasked with making the decision.
Microsoft's management are, unlike you, fairly intelligent. Their turning their backs on the most lucrative software market in the world would be hilarious entertainment. Not only does their software division's profits halve, but Linux reaches critical mass on the European desktop and adoption spreads to the US.
It'd be beautiful.
Score: 0
|If Linux is so wonderful, why hasn't everyone in the EU (or anywhere else for that matter) wiped Windows off of their PCs and switched wholesale to it?
Considering that most versions of Linux are absolutely free (give or take the cost of a download) - I would think that people would jump at the chance to be free of the "shackles" that MS has supposedly placed upon the world.
Score: 0
|