I have to admit my previous post is emotional. But it's my point of view. If mistakes are allowed to be corrected is usually not up to one who has made it. It's up to the one who has been affected because of it and because of the consequences (basically the customers, they consume, the EU they control). When M$ is publishing something at the European market then they want European customers. There are rules made by the EU and everyone who wants to sell something there has to comply with the rules there are. Nothing else M$ and the US are claiming for. M$ has their EULA and the US have their own market rules. So when European companies want to sell something at the US market they have to comply with the US rules as well. I personally am not a person that says mistakes should not be forgiven. The point here is that a monopoly situation of a rich company as M$ is delays development when enforcing such corrections of mistakes. The penalties that were issued do not really harm M$. A small company with a real competition might not afford such mistakes. They wouldn't have the power to enforce the correction later. When customers buy windows and they get additionally WMP and IE they are using it, or at least try it. So a dependence is always created and the competition is restricted. Some market rules simply don't allow that. M$ is not the only company that offers internet browsers and mediaplayers. The situation is even more serious when miscalculated and missed an progress. So the question is not if M$ is allowed to make mistakes that can be corrected, the question is: Shouldn't the companies not be honored when they have the ability to evaluate a particular market situation rightly and are first in developing? How do they feel when a monopolist comes far too late and destroys all their effort by creating dependences later? If this is a way to correct that should be allowed, then I personally say no, in the name of innovation.
I don't mind the emo part of it at all, Yen. However, at least you actually *recognize* it as such - most of those that share your POV don't. Of course non-EU companies competing in the EU have to follow the EU rules (the EU-based companies have to also) - that isn't the issue at all. My issue (and it is not EU-specific; it applies equally to any country) is that the rules have to be both sensible and actually MAKE sense; far too little law or regulation actually does. Anti-monopoly laws and regulations (because they tread such a fine line) are where the greatest of care must be taken (both in terms of crafting the basic law, and in terms of enforcement) because the consequences for getting it wrong are so egregious (both for the targets of enforcement and the citizen that is supposed to be the ultimate beneficiary of the basic law and the enforcement provisions). Windows competes with Linux distributions; Linux already has the advantage of having no cost (it's free for the downloading - even if looking strictly at packaged versions of the distributions, it's still far cheaper than Windows). While Windows (in a sense) competes with OS X, it doesn't do so directly - that was a decision made deliberately by Apple. The crux of the EU position is that Microsoft went against EU policy by competing almost heads-up with the Linux distributions - in short, the EU government favors Linux for various un-spelled-out reasons and won't let any commercial OS compete heads-up with Linux. (Basically, the rules favor Linux, and it's Microsoft's bad luck to not BE a Linux.) That's what I mean about lack of clarity - spell out that the rules are designned to deliberately disfavor ANY non-Linux-based OS, as opposed to being not only wishy-washy, but facing the countercharge of deliberate baiting.
To admit that my post is emotional just means that I care much about. Anyway I agree with everything I have posted. I don’t know why you’ve mentioned Linux. Your assumption that the EU favours Linux for ‘various un-spelled-out reasons’ is completely wrong, IMHO. I have posted what’s the reason why the EU has issued penalties to M$. It reflects basically my opinion. It is about to embed IE and WMP and about to create dependencies. As you have posted most Linux based OSes are open source and free. The EU controls the market where money plays a role, not the free OSes. The EU market politics are different to the US market politics. -The US support their own companies and they prefer them OVER foreign companies. -Their pride to have US economic power plays a major role. -The EU market is far more liberal, they support free competition. -The EU doesn’t care about national pride, they support a free competition and hence they fight monopoly, no matter if US or EU monopoly. I’d say 90% of all EU companies are using windows as corporate OS, though. The EU categorizes. The penalty was issued because of embedding IE and WMP. The EU wants free competition of others which are providing browsers and players as well. And guess where Linux is present? Linux goes its own way, without being noticed. It can because nobody pays extra costs for it. Linux based OSes are running where most don’t think about! TV: Most Samsung TV’s are running a Linux based OS Router: On most router there runs a Linux based OS Satellite receiver: On most Satellite receiver there runs a Linux based OS Of course Android NAS: Most NAS are running a Linux based media server. Web server / FTP server: Most are running Apache, MDL runs it as well Wii game console Navigation systems Linux is not really a competitor for windows. Linux has already found its place. It runs probably on more devices all over the world as you think. What you call lack of clarity do I call disrespect of EU laws. It's not up to M$ to think about. They want to sell in the EU so they have to comply. If it makes sense to them or not. Does their EULA make sense, or is clear? Is it even conform to national laws? It's not because of something is cheaper, or free it's all about monopoly. I guess we have a completely different POW here,lol.
The issue is not whether it crerates dependencies. Most Linux distributions *at the time* already included both a browser and a media player - in other words, the Linux distributions recognized the value in doing exactly that. So, given that, why *shouldn't* the commercial OS most under the gun due to Linux - namely Windows - be allowed to do so? And yes, the political angle in the EU is indeed different compared to the US - I didn't dispute that. However, the very difference in politics between governments is why it behooves those governments (all of them - it's not strictly a problem with the EU) into spelling out the rules better). The EU supports primarily free products (and especially domestic free products) over commercial products, regardless of source - if that's the case, say so! Bias in terms of trade tends to get you in trouble when it's amorphous and murky (which the EU has been great at being) - is asking for clarity such a bad thing? And to think the EU haas no pride in that matter is decidedly an incorrect assumption - the EU doesn't want to depend on a *foreign* OS - commercial or otherwise. (Notice that I didn't say I had a beef with that.)
Cor blimey Guv!.... Jus' WOT a fread!! Just a few minor points: 1. Please do not confuse the Eu with a country. There are massive amounts of national pride within the countries within the EU but not for the EU itself. I personally have no nationalistic fervour for the EU. It is a confederation and a relatively new one at that. It will never be a union like the USA (IMHO) due to the thousands of years of history the individual countries have; 2. Having said that I do support their decisions re Microsoft. The competition was unfair and MS (IMHO) undertook bullying tatics withtheir suppliers and customers; 3. Every linux distro does include browsers etc. Thus is due to demand and making it easier for consumers to switch to it and start using immediately. Where it differs from MS however is that it is not a 'Ubuntu' browser or 'Red Hat' browser but a linux one. The linux distros have no 'own brand' browser they promote but merely ones that can run on linux. If MS made ie in a linux flavour I thinkl some would even try that. 4. To say that the EU supports primarily free products is just nonsense - sorry but it is.... as well as being commercial suicide; 5. Also to say that the EU does not want to depend on a foreign OS is also nonsense. There are so many countries in the EU that to say we all have to have our home grown OS's (which if you understood the Eu you would understand that that is what you are suggesting is jusy ridiculous. Sorry to be blunt but I only just got up and have not had my coffee yet....
1. Ther EU acts like a federation (a supranational government overarching the individual member nations are more like states in the US - the EU bureaucracy can, has, and will, override the actions of individual EU governments). If it walks, talks, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. 2 AND 3. Basically, Linux distributions are permitted to include browsers and media players, but Microsoft is not. How is that NOT a bias in favor of Linux? (The fact that the distributions themselves don't brand them is irrelevant.) Further, neither the Linux distributions, or Microsoft, charge for their inclusion. The issue of dependencies has to do with file-formats and codecs - something beyond the control of Microsoft OR the distributions. 4. Confirmed largely by not only 2 and 3, but by actions by individual EU governments (such as OFCOM) which the EU has permitted. Further, how many EU governments - at the national, state, and/or local level, sponsored, either directly or indirectly, particular Linux distributions, including with funding or other *help* of the same sort that the EU had lambasted Boeing for supposedly getting in the competition with Airbus? 5. By *foreign* I mean specifically non-EU-sourced. Let's face facts - Windows is primarily (though not exclusively) sourced from outside the EU - that isn't the case with most Linux distributions (not even those assembled in the US, such as Cary, NC-based RedHat). That is a *national-interest* issue which I have nary a quibble with in terms of the EU. (A similar issue in terms of the United States *has* reared its head with regards to the usage of Linux distributions and government computers - at every level; why wouldn't the EU and/or member governments have a similar issue?)
Eccchhh... When people do not know much about it but presume they know all there is to know about something... There are ongoing battles at the heart of EU, regarding what kind of EU we want to see: -Social Democratic (co-operative, Scandinavian and German models, for instance) or Social Darwinistic (confrontational, US/UK) paradigms... -politics against markets or neo-liberalism... -supra-national (or even stronger) or inter-governmental... ...one could go on... These battles are ongoing and not exactly straight-forward in a variety of ways... No black/white simplicity is advisable here... But don't let this stop you in your prejudices and utter emotionalism...
Because m$ - left to its own devices - only includes its own and Linux as such allows more (freely) and it's all easily available... All that EU requested is that m$ opens its doors and not FORCE anyone to do anything in that respect but offer meaningful CHOICE (rather than strong-arm companies or brain-wash consumers, let's say from young age onwards)! Now, how mean is that of them, just what kind of favouritism are we talking about, if IE is not forced out of that choice but just offered among other browsers?!? (Unbelievable, these apologists, in their blinkered-ness...) OKeeeyyyy... If you are putting things in that framework, you will have it... Let's see... US Corporations are largely influencing US foreign policy (banana case, for instance, is an undeniable example), according to their interests, which are by default seen as the overall "national interests". A clear case of general interest becoming/being reduced to a particular/partial/special interest. Shall I remind you of - just one old example, not to go into new ones - Lockheed huge bribery cases of the gov officials of all sorts, on top of that?!? Or... US gov has been and is subsidising its food producing corporations to unbelievable sums and they still go after countries who dare do the same... Moreover, they flood some countries' markets with free grain, destroy their production, then have them by the short and curlies afterwards, forcing them to buy their chemical (or military) products "to remedy the situation"... Abominable!!! If you want to put it in those terms: is EU/national gov allowed to buy at least 10-15% Linux, while all the rest is m$?!? Laughable!!! Luckily, EU is not Guatemala, Colombia, Nicaragua or Honduras or some such poor place at its mercy... Why wouldn't they... what exactly??? Spit it out...
1. Overly simplistic and inaccurate. It may talk like it does or wants to but at the end of the day individual soverignity reigns in most cases. If individual members do not like what comes out of Brussels then they tend to ignore it...... ina similar way to the US ignoring the War Crimes Tribunal when it suits them and aknowledging it when it suits them; 2 & 3 This is a bizarre argument. Windows is one OS owned by one company. Linux is the basis for many OS's owned by many different organisations. This is a similar argument to the IOS/Android one and it does not work there either. The browsers and media players included in the distro are (AFAIK) not made by the same organisation as the distro. Windows now includes a choice of browsers form sources other than MS.....; 4. When did OFCOM become a goverment? I have no idea of any state sponsorship of linux distro's. Don't really understand what you mean actually....... unless you mean that taking action against MS is the same thing as supporting Linux. 5. To be honest if you look at the list of countries in the first and second world then it would be a little difficult to have non EU sourced OS other than MS.......
I guess it's not, because some are contributing to the discussion. Your post might be, though, lol. It's quite funny PGHammer tries to blame the EU in finding similarities the US gov is known to enforce by themselves. But he seems to forget that he compares a product made by ONE company exclusively, is copyright'ed and NO open source..... with an OS that is OPEN source (GNU GPL) and is developed by a huge community. IMHO the EU doesn't go far enough when controlling and the US companies have still the freedom to determine the price. A price especially made for EU consumers, which is usually much higher than the US price. (Mmm..there had been something with OEM versions and its costs....and M$ again, never mind) Why should an EU citizen pay for an IPhone 800 Euros whereas the US citizen can have it for 500 US $? You might say because they are stupid. Lol, in this case I’d agree with. But it is not only the IPhone. US products generally are much more expensive in the EU than in the US. This is a point where the EU IMHO has to act as well. Why should they make their most profit with the money of the EU citizens? There is no reason. The shipping doesn’t justify the higher costs. I guess the US companies and gov still don't get that the world doesn't revolve around them. There are other and better companies which are no US companies. This fact is a PITA for the US. Their imperialistic behaviour is also reflected in the shut down of megaupload. Also by denying environment protective contracts such as reduction of CO2 emission. All they are care about is their economy and money. I am working at the pharmaceutical industry. The FDA also tries to manipulate competition of EU companies by putting obstacles in their way. I could write a book about how US authorities systematically obstruct EU companies to establish themselves at the US market. All these requirements apply to the EU companies only of course. It’s time for resistance. As a way to do so why not skip an US product like w8? The origin of the word sanction is also about healing...btw to sanction is a common practice used by governments as well....
Haha you got me there, it's that that this Thread has gone completely off-topic , while the main topic was stupid to begin with though.
After seeing the hassle it takes it takes to boot with driver signature enforcement disabled, I'm inclined to agree. But it's still kind of early. Hopefully they'll get over this "simple=better" phase.
I guess we have nothing better to do than to discuss . The thread title sounds odd, that's right. But I wouldn't consider it as off-topic. M$ represents a huge rich US monopolist. M$ is unwanted by some consumers. Also in the aspect of supporting a US monopolist and the fact if we would have a real OS competition we had already a far more advanced OS. Especially to the youger consumers this all is fuss and doesn't matter, they simply enjoy windows. Btw: It seems w8 loses its 50% majority....0.6 to go.