Originally posted by Kyleran Originally posted by 0k21 I was actually referencing to SOE, I wasn't trying to start a flame war, though I wouldn't say I didn't hate microsoft just as much for the kind of stunts they try to pull off with the computer and software industry, as for humanity not being what they are now? I reckon we'd be better off, we'd have a much better variety of software packages and the computer industry would have lots of healthy competitors, I don't have as much experience in this industry as the Games Industry but I can safely say that they are very similar in the way they practice, also, there's no appropriate forum to debate about SOE, we can debate about it wherever we like, so unless your a moderator telling me off, please keep your comments to yourself.
Totally disagree with you. I was around back in the early 80s when everyone was using different operating systems and basic software packages, and the biggest challenged we faces was no one could communicate with each other. Say what you want about how Microsoft sucks, but their software unified the world under basically one operating system (for better or worse) and now it is much easier for developers to code games that reach all of us (ask MAC users how much fun it is to be the odd man out) and when I create a Word document, damn near everyone on the Internet can download and read it. We needed standards, and MS provided them. Right now they are being fined for giving away free software as part of their operating system, which means that some other company loses out on the opportunity to charge me for it...... oh yeah...thats a real improvement, sure glad I'm getting that choice.... Oh wait..I live in the US...i won't have to face that problem.
Absolutely agree with you, Kyleran; just the ridiculous number of similar-yet-different operating systems in the early PC days were a pain in the backside. Operations as simple as putting information on a 5.25" floppy and moving it from one system to another were difficult just because of the varied formatting standards. UGH!
While I certainly don't agree with all of Microsoft's decisions, I appreciate, like you, the fact that they've managed to standardize what was initially chaotic. Sure, they brute-forced their way to their current position, but honestly, they aren't entirely to blame (or be lionized) for their current success.
If Apple had stepped off of their "only on our hardware" soapbox way back when and focused just a little bit more on business applications, they probably would at least have equal market share. It's just a simple fact that businesses don't want to be told they have to shell out double or triple the investment to get a product they could pay significantly less for on cheaper hardware.
It's a shame that Microsoft has become too big to seriously consider just cutting the EU off. What they should do is tell the court that they will gladly reimburse all EU customers who return a legal copy of Windows and discontinue its sale in the EU. That way the EU won't have to worry about bundled free applications in their operating system. They can just use a different operating system. Next thing you know some idiot will sue to have the calculator removed. It's ridiculous.
Honestly, it's not like those who prefer a specific media player can't just install it and set it to be the default handler for their media.
Just because your average consumer finds Windows Media Player to have all of the features they require and prefers not to bother installing another media player doesn't indicate a monopoly. What it indicates is that Microsoft is delivering a competitive item for free, which as Kyleran pointed out, is what really rankles the companies/individuals who brought the suit in the first place; that they can't charge you for something that is being provided gratis. So, since they can't seem to convince anyone to purchase their alternative, they'll get their money another way; by bringing a lawsuit.
Similarly, no one is forcing them to use Windows. They are more than welcome to develop and distribute their own operating system throughout the EU or to adopt the use of an existing competitor.
A monopoly exists when there is no viable choice. Not when there are choices but they are less desirable than what the consumer already has.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq Adnihilo Beorn Judge's Edge Somnulus Perfect Black ---------------------- Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2 Everquest / Everquest 2 Anarchy Online Shadowbane Dark Age of Camelot Star Wars Galaxies Matrix Online World of Warcraft Guild Wars City of Heroes
I was actually referencing to SOE, I wasn't trying to start a flame war, though I wouldn't say I didn't hate microsoft just as much for the kind of stunts they try to pull off with the computer and software industry, as for humanity not being what they are now? I reckon we'd be better off, we'd have a much better variety of software packages and the computer industry would have lots of healthy competitors, I don't have as much experience in this industry as the Games Industry but I can safely say that they are very similar in the way they practice, also, there's no appropriate forum to debate about SOE, we can debate about it wherever we like, so unless your a moderator telling me off, please keep your comments to yourself.
Totally disagree with you. I was around back in the early 80s when everyone was using different operating systems and basic software packages, and the biggest challenged we faces was no one could communicate with each other.
Say what you want about how Microsoft sucks, but their software unified the world under basically one operating system (for better or worse) and now it is much easier for developers to code games that reach all of us (ask MAC users how much fun it is to be the odd man out) and when I create a Word document, damn near everyone on the Internet can download and read it.
We needed standards, and MS provided them. Right now they are being fined for giving away free software as part of their operating system, which means that some other company loses out on the opportunity to charge me for it...... oh yeah...thats a real improvement, sure glad I'm getting that choice....
Oh wait..I live in the US...i won't have to face that problem.
Absolutely agree with you, Kyleran; just the ridiculous number of similar-yet-different operating systems in the early PC days were a pain in the backside. Operations as simple as putting information on a 5.25" floppy and moving it from one system to another were difficult just because of the varied formatting standards. UGH!
While I certainly don't agree with all of Microsoft's decisions, I appreciate, like you, the fact that they've managed to standardize what was initially chaotic. Sure, they brute-forced their way to their current position, but honestly, they aren't entirely to blame (or be lionized) for their current success.
If Apple had stepped off of their "only on our hardware" soapbox way back when and focused just a little bit more on business applications, they probably would at least have equal market share. It's just a simple fact that businesses don't want to be told they have to shell out double or triple the investment to get a product they could pay significantly less for on cheaper hardware.
It's a shame that Microsoft has become too big to seriously consider just cutting the EU off. What they should do is tell the court that they will gladly reimburse all EU customers who return a legal copy of Windows and discontinue its sale in the EU. That way the EU won't have to worry about bundled free applications in their operating system. They can just use a different operating system. Next thing you know some idiot will sue to have the calculator removed. It's ridiculous.
Honestly, it's not like those who prefer a specific media player can't just install it and set it to be the default handler for their media.
Just because your average consumer finds Windows Media Player to have all of the features they require and prefers not to bother installing another media player doesn't indicate a monopoly. What it indicates is that Microsoft is delivering a competitive item for free, which as Kyleran pointed out, is what really rankles the companies/individuals who brought the suit in the first place; that they can't charge you for something that is being provided gratis. So, since they can't seem to convince anyone to purchase their alternative, they'll get their money another way; by bringing a lawsuit.
Similarly, no one is forcing them to use Windows. They are more than welcome to develop and distribute their own operating system throughout the EU or to adopt the use of an existing competitor.
A monopoly exists when there is no viable choice. Not when there are choices but they are less desirable than what the consumer already has.
Wrte to the lawyers of the EU. And of Microsoft. After over 14 years of proceedings they obviously haven't figured out what you said.
Ah, yes, the EU. That would explain it. Seems to be plenty of people over there who don't necessarily believe in the free market or capitalism, but I guess that's a US thing anyway.
If I were MS and I lost the suit, I'd pack up all operations in Europe, shut them down, and pull out of the country. Can't collect from a company if it doesn't do business in your country. Then Europe would be without official access and/or support for Windows.
Actually, I wouldn't because MS makes plenty of money anyway. It was just a half-cocked evil idea that struck me when I read this thread.
Aye you are great.
And of course MS is going to listen to you and renounce to a third of its profits.
You need a reality check mate.
MS is the only one that has all the interests to stay in Europe and abide its rules.
The US isn't the biggest economy market, the EU is. Just remember that.
But I am sure that Bill Gates is aware of this small detail, therefore you won't see MS out of Europe any time soon..............
Ahh, now on the case of PLATFORM systems I can totally agree with you on that Kyleran and others after reading again, but I was talking more on the lines of general PC software, I can't say the same for PC's because I'm a windows user myself, but for consoles I get incredibly annoyed when a new console comes out every two or three years claiming to be next generation and they only have like three decent games on them which I consider to be a complete waste of money. When it comes to software though I think it's always a good idea to have a bit of variety, if you look at 3D modelling software for instance that's an area that can always have improvement, I remember reading on wikipedia about how autodesk and some other company that was starting to develop Maya ( sorry, think I need to look it up properly again, so correct me if I'm wrong ) merged together when microsoft were trying to buyout a company/software called Softimage, it's those kind of business practices that Microsoft do I find ridiculous, again for something like the PC I can totally understand the need for a single platform because it would be just silly if we had to keep changing constantly for different software or games.
Oh and on the European comments, it's isolationists like you lot that are the very reason why so many people seem to hate America these days, thankfully though, I don't stereotype as much as some people do, so I have my share of friends there as well as around the world.
Quoting people doesn't make you clever, in fact, it makes you all the more stupid for not bothering to read the quotes you post in the first place.
I would love a stripped down version of Windows without Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer, Outlook, MSN Explorer, Windows Firewall, MSN Games, and the managery of stuff it installs with that I instantly un-install.
Ah, yes, the EU. That would explain it. Seems to be plenty of people over there who don't necessarily believe in the free market or capitalism, but I guess that's a US thing anyway.
If I were MS and I lost the suit, I'd pack up all operations in Europe, shut them down, and pull out of the country. Can't collect from a company if it doesn't do business in your country. Then Europe would be without official access and/or support for Windows.
Actually, I wouldn't because MS makes plenty of money anyway. It was just a half-cocked evil idea that struck me when I read this thread.
hey u should post more often,thats a damm good idea.haha ahh the truth of it is so sweet..europe is so funny
A larger font doesn't make you smarter. In your case silence does.
ahhh...look at it like this america is the head and europe this the tail !!!!
"this the tail" ??
Don't let his bad spelling, lack of grammar, crappy punctuation and non-existent argumentation dstract you from his perfect analysis of global politics.
Didn't your mommy teach you if you don't have something nice to say to keep your mouth shut, Ya'll don't have nothing ever nice to say about nobody when ever they don't hold up to your standards,And who would want to argue with u any way, ya'll believe you are above it all. And if wasn't the US you would be speaking german any how . do u like that ya'll part i sure do...
If it wasn't for Europe, the US as it is today would not exist.
Ah, yes, the EU. That would explain it. Seems to be plenty of people over there who don't necessarily believe in the free market or capitalism, but I guess that's a US thing anyway.
If I were MS and I lost the suit, I'd pack up all operations in Europe, shut them down, and pull out of the country. Can't collect from a company if it doesn't do business in your country. Then Europe would be without official access and/or support for Windows.
Actually, I wouldn't because MS makes plenty of money anyway. It was just a half-cocked evil idea that struck me when I read this thread.
hey u should post more often,thats a damm good idea.haha ahh the truth of it is so sweet..europe is so funny
A larger font doesn't make you smarter. In your case silence does.
ahhh...look at it like this america is the head and europe this the tail !!!!
"this the tail" ??
Don't let his bad spelling, lack of grammar, crappy punctuation and non-existent argumentation dstract you from his perfect analysis of global politics.
Didn't your mommy teach you if you don't have something nice to say to keep your mouth shut, Ya'll don't have nothing ever nice to say about nobody when ever they don't hold up to your standards,And who would want to argue with u any way, ya'll believe you are above it all. And if wasn't the US you would be speaking german any how . do u like that ya'll part i sure do...
I'm not going to compliment someone for living up to my awesome standards. Which are that you don't behave like a retard. And if you claim something (for example "y'all wud be speakin like german if twasn fo the good ol us o' a, fuggin hippies") back it up wth some arguments. And spelling and punctuation would be nice too. Darn, I really AM demanding, aren't I?
Don't let his bad spelling, lack of grammar, crappy punctuation and non-existent argumentation dstract you from his perfect analysis of global politics.
Didn't your mommy teach you if you don't have something nice to say to keep your mouth shut, Ya'll don't have nothing ever nice to say about nobody when ever they don't hold up to your standards,And who would want to argue with u any way, ya'll believe you are above it all. And if wasn't the US you would be speaking german any how . do u like that ya'll part i sure do...
Aye than you should be the first one to keep your hole well locked.
Obviously i agree with what Gameloading is saying.
Without Europe you will still sending smoke signal to comunicate with each other.
How about that? Easy to forget the part of History you don't like.
Also you need to get used to the fact that the US is going to lose its position as the dominant economic and military superpower, so you all need to start being nice to people and stop treating non US citizens like second rate people who doesn't know a shit (In this case, I am referring to the narrow minded people who attacked the EU because it dared to penalise a US company)
The world cought up with US and is going to overtake it, if you didn't realised that yet.
The EU is already the biggest economic market and China is going soon too overtake US in the military departement.
History changes all the time, sometimes is good for you sometimes is not.
Don't bring up history facts to justify your arguments of alleged superiority of your country.
Stick with actual facts in order to support your arguments, don't use things happened 60 years ago.
First off Microsoft is not a Monopoly. It is unfair to them to force them to release code for free to competitiors. As said before these competitors could choose to develop their software on a competing platform and refuse to work with Windows.
Secondly Monopolies aren't always bad. The big telephone company back before it got busted up by antitrust laws actually provided better service at a lower price then after it got broken up. In some cases competition actually is bad for the marketplace. Especially with something that needs uniformity and standards.
I too think it would be funny to see Billy boy just pull out. It isn't like the company needs the money. Honestly they could hold the EU hostage more so then the EU can hold them hostage. Because whether we like it or not, Windows is the dominant service currently in the marketplace (and remember we don't own our software we are leasing it due to Digital copyright laws). So honestly Microsoft could do worse then just pull out the software on the shelfs and the support system for the EU. They could turn off every European copy of Windows by disabling their security code in their system. Last time I heard Microsoft is sitting on a pile of money numbering in the 100 billions.
Also, Microsoft didn't bitchslap the US Government. We have different laws then the EU and our laws protect the right of a company to make money and become a dominant force in the marketplace.
Really what Microsoft should do is not bundle it with Windows anymore but have it be part of the automatic updates. That way the average joe is still going to get it for free. They shouldn't be forced to give up their code though, especially not for free. That is just plain ridiculous.
First off Microsoft is not a Monopoly. It is unfair to them to force them to release code for free to competitiors. As said before these competitors could choose to develop their software on a competing platform and refuse to work with Windows. Secondly Monopolies aren't always bad. The big telephone company back before it got busted up by antitrust laws actually provided better service at a lower price then after it got broken up. In some cases competition actually is bad for the marketplace. Especially with something that needs uniformity and standards. I too think it would be funny to see Billy boy just pull out. It isn't like the company needs the money. Honestly they could hold the EU hostage more so then the EU can hold them hostage. Because whether we like it or not, Windows is the dominant service currently in the marketplace (and remember we don't own our software we are leasing it due to Digital copyright laws). So honestly Microsoft could do worse then just pull out the software on the shelfs and the support system for the EU. They could turn off every European copy of Windows by disabling their security code in their system. Last time I heard Microsoft is sitting on a pile of money numbering in the 100 billions. Also, Microsoft didn't bitchslap the US Government. We have different laws then the EU and our laws protect the right of a company to make money and become a dominant force in the marketplace. Really what Microsoft should do is not bundle it with Windows anymore but have it be part of the automatic updates. That way the average joe is still going to get it for free. They shouldn't be forced to give up their code though, especially not for free. That is just plain ridiculous.
1: If your analysis were to be correct don't you think either Micro$oft or the EU would have figured them out in 13 or 14 years of proceedings?
2: Half of the things you say are bullshit. Microsoft isn't sitting on hundreds of billions. Companies don't sit on their money. They invest it. Buy bonds with it. Whatever. They never, ever sit on it. Because it would just devaluate. Also, there are perfectly good reasons to FORCE Microsoft to release part of their code. because if they wouldn't... It would be impossible for companies to make alternatives for MSN/MP/... .
3: Because of the former they also can't afford to pull out of the largest single market on the planet. Not to mention the friggin Eurosphere. Abandoning that market of about a billion souls (Eurosphere included) would make a massive market open to any competitor of Microsoft. This will make almost unlimited funds available for those competitors making a true alternative for Windows available. Something Microsoft won't be able to stop. And just as FireFox is taking over from IE, those competitors (as they will be a lot more free in terms of structure and legislation (undoubtedly thanks to Eu legislation)) will be able to kick Microsoft in the balls.
And cut them off? Do you honestly think the internet would continue to function if the entire EU would be cut of from operating systems? Get real. THousands of servers (of US companies too) would seize to function and imagine the impact on the world market. The US trade deficit would explode (yes, even more) overnight.
4: Uniformity and structure? Sure. Shame Microsoft doesn't actually provide that. Uniformity and structure is being provided by other companies. By organisations whose job it is to provide uniformity and structure. Boohoo.
5: Yes, Microsoft bitchslapped the US government. Of course it did.
On April 3, 2000, a judgment was handed down in the case of United States v. Microsoft,[15] calling the company an "abusive monopoly"[6] and forcing the company to split into two separate units. Part of this ruling was later overturned by a federal appeals court, and eventually settled with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2001.
You don't honestly think the US would accept this hegemony if t had a choice, do you?
Oh I am sorry Microsoft has chosen to reduce their cash balances by dividends and repurchasing their own stock. Back in April of this year they had 29 billion dollars in cash reserves. Down from about 65 billion in 2004 and the first time in 5 years that they had less then 30 billion dollars in cash reserves.
First off Microsoft is not a Monopoly. It is unfair to them to force them to release code for free to competitiors. As said before these competitors could choose to develop their software on a competing platform and refuse to work with Windows. Secondly Monopolies aren't always bad. The big telephone company back before it got busted up by antitrust laws actually provided better service at a lower price then after it got broken up. In some cases competition actually is bad for the marketplace. Especially with something that needs uniformity and standards. I too think it would be funny to see Billy boy just pull out. It isn't like the company needs the money. Honestly they could hold the EU hostage more so then the EU can hold them hostage. Because whether we like it or not, Windows is the dominant service currently in the marketplace (and remember we don't own our software we are leasing it due to Digital copyright laws). So honestly Microsoft could do worse then just pull out the software on the shelfs and the support system for the EU. They could turn off every European copy of Windows by disabling their security code in their system. Last time I heard Microsoft is sitting on a pile of money numbering in the 100 billions. Also, Microsoft didn't bitchslap the US Government. We have different laws then the EU and our laws protect the right of a company to make money and become a dominant force in the marketplace. Really what Microsoft should do is not bundle it with Windows anymore but have it be part of the automatic updates. That way the average joe is still going to get it for free. They shouldn't be forced to give up their code though, especially not for free. That is just plain ridiculous.
1: If your analysis were to be correct don't you think either Micro$oft or the EU would have figured them out in 13 or 14 years of proceedings?
2: Half of the things you say are bullshit. Microsoft isn't sitting on hundreds of billions. Companies don't sit on their money. They invest it. Buy bonds with it. Whatever. They never, ever sit on it. Because it would just devaluate. Also, there are perfectly good reasons to FORCE Microsoft to release part of their code. because if they wouldn't... It would be impossible for companies to make alternatives for MSN/MP/... .
3: Because of the former they also can't afford to pull out of the largest single market on the planet. Not to mention the friggin Eurosphere. Abandoning that market of about a billion souls (Eurosphere included) would make a massive market open to any competitor of Microsoft. This will make almost unlimited funds available for those competitors making a true alternative for Windows available. Something Microsoft won't be able to stop. And just as FireFox is taking over from IE, those competitors (as they will be a lot more free in terms of structure and legislation (undoubtedly thanks to Eu legislation)) will be able to kick Microsoft in the balls.
And cut them off? Do you honestly think the internet would continue to function if the entire EU would be cut of from operating systems? Get real. THousands of servers (of US companies too) would seize to function and imagine the impact on the world market. The US trade deficit would explode (yes, even more) overnight.
4: Uniformity and structure? Sure. Shame Microsoft doesn't actually provide that. Uniformity and structure is being provided by other companies. By organisations whose job it is to provide uniformity and structure. Boohoo.
5: Yes, Microsoft bitchslapped the US government. Of course it did.
On April 3, 2000, a judgment was handed down in the case of United States v. Microsoft,[15] calling the company an "abusive monopoly"[6] and forcing the company to split into two separate units. Part of this ruling was later overturned by a federal appeals court, and eventually settled with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2001.
You don't honestly think the US would accept this hegemony if t had a choice, do you?
Point 1: No they don't care. Both are looking from their own point of views and neither wants to look at it from the logical middle ground. That is the problem with people today.
Point 2: as I said in my reply I was off on the amount but honestly 100 billion or 29 billion there is not a real huge difference. Microsoft has always been a company that keeps tons of Cash on hand. Just for these reasons. This is the first year in the past 5 years that htey have had less then 30 billion in cash reserves.
Point 3: Of course they could afford it. They could stop making products and even the friggen receptionist could be rich. They have said before they have made money hand over fist and could completely pull out if they felt like it. They could turn around and decide that they were done and still have plenty of cash to pay off their stockholders and be done with it. It doesn't mean they will and I honestly think the EU would cave in before waiting on Competitors to get their product out.
Point 4: There was no uniformity or structure in the OS place before Microsoft. They have allowed us to be able to communicate across the globe. They have done so at a relatively fair market value with a decent product. Could it be better? Well no one has been able to provide a better product yet, otherwise they would be the marketplace leader.
Point 5: You must not understand the US legal system. One judge can rule on an issue and his/her interpertation of the Law could be completely different from another Judge. That is why we have so many legal appeals. In this case the Government was wrong. Microsoft was not a monopoly because they did have competitors, the competitors just sucked. Which isn't the fault of Microsoft. They can't be faulted that Apple OS or Linux can't get marketshare.
First off Microsoft is not a Monopoly. It is unfair to them to force them to release code for free to competitiors. As said before these competitors could choose to develop their software on a competing platform and refuse to work with Windows. Secondly Monopolies aren't always bad. The big telephone company back before it got busted up by antitrust laws actually provided better service at a lower price then after it got broken up. In some cases competition actually is bad for the marketplace. Especially with something that needs uniformity and standards. I too think it would be funny to see Billy boy just pull out. It isn't like the company needs the money. Honestly they could hold the EU hostage more so then the EU can hold them hostage. Because whether we like it or not, Windows is the dominant service currently in the marketplace (and remember we don't own our software we are leasing it due to Digital copyright laws). So honestly Microsoft could do worse then just pull out the software on the shelfs and the support system for the EU. They could turn off every European copy of Windows by disabling their security code in their system. Last time I heard Microsoft is sitting on a pile of money numbering in the 100 billions. Also, Microsoft didn't bitchslap the US Government. We have different laws then the EU and our laws protect the right of a company to make money and become a dominant force in the marketplace. Really what Microsoft should do is not bundle it with Windows anymore but have it be part of the automatic updates. That way the average joe is still going to get it for free. They shouldn't be forced to give up their code though, especially not for free. That is just plain ridiculous.
1: If your analysis were to be correct don't you think either Micro$oft or the EU would have figured them out in 13 or 14 years of proceedings?
2: Half of the things you say are bullshit. Microsoft isn't sitting on hundreds of billions. Companies don't sit on their money. They invest it. Buy bonds with it. Whatever. They never, ever sit on it. Because it would just devaluate. Also, there are perfectly good reasons to FORCE Microsoft to release part of their code. because if they wouldn't... It would be impossible for companies to make alternatives for MSN/MP/... .
3: Because of the former they also can't afford to pull out of the largest single market on the planet. Not to mention the friggin Eurosphere. Abandoning that market of about a billion souls (Eurosphere included) would make a massive market open to any competitor of Microsoft. This will make almost unlimited funds available for those competitors making a true alternative for Windows available. Something Microsoft won't be able to stop. And just as FireFox is taking over from IE, those competitors (as they will be a lot more free in terms of structure and legislation (undoubtedly thanks to Eu legislation)) will be able to kick Microsoft in the balls.
And cut them off? Do you honestly think the internet would continue to function if the entire EU would be cut of from operating systems? Get real. THousands of servers (of US companies too) would seize to function and imagine the impact on the world market. The US trade deficit would explode (yes, even more) overnight.
4: Uniformity and structure? Sure. Shame Microsoft doesn't actually provide that. Uniformity and structure is being provided by other companies. By organisations whose job it is to provide uniformity and structure. Boohoo.
5: Yes, Microsoft bitchslapped the US government. Of course it did.
On April 3, 2000, a judgment was handed down in the case of United States v. Microsoft,[15] calling the company an "abusive monopoly"[6] and forcing the company to split into two separate units. Part of this ruling was later overturned by a federal appeals court, and eventually settled with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2001.
You don't honestly think the US would accept this hegemony if t had a choice, do you?
Point 1: No they don't care. Both are looking from their own point of views and neither wants to look at it from the logical middle ground. That is the problem with people today.
Wow. So sad they're not as immensely smart as you are. Especially considering it could have saved Microsoft millions of dollars. So sad... Seriously. Write them a letter. Both of em. No. Even better. Send in a job application. Don't forget to tell us which party is going to pay you more. Point 2: as I said in my reply I was off on the amount but honestly 100 billion or 29 billion there is not a real huge difference. Microsoft has always been a company that keeps tons of Cash on hand. Just for these reasons. This is the first year in the past 5 years that htey have had less then 30 billion in cash reserves. As far as I know (to compared to you, I know very little) the difference between 100 billion and 29 billion is exactly 71 billion. Correct me if I'm wrong. Apparently Microsoft expects to lose trials. A new way of admiting guilt, I guess. Point 3: Of course they could afford it. They could stop making products and even the friggen receptionist could be rich. They have said before they have made money hand over fist and could completely pull out if they felt like it. They could turn around and decide that they were done and still have plenty of cash to pay off their stockholders and be done with it. It doesn't mean they will and I honestly think the EU would cave in before waiting on Competitors to get their product out. And why don't they, then? And like I told you, considering the huge market the EU is for American products it would be quite a bad move to disable such a large economy. For the US too. And as you might have noticed, there already IS competition. Point 4: There was no uniformity or structure in the OS place before Microsoft. They have allowed us to be able to communicate across the globe. They have done so at a relatively fair market value with a decent product. Could it be better? Well no one has been able to provide a better product yet, otherwise they would be the marketplace leader. They made global communcation possible? That has been in development since long before Microsoft existed, sonny. If they were making a "fair" product then they wouldn't be making a billion profit every month, now would they? Let's see how much uniformity they actually brought. Of the following list only one Microsoft individual has helped development of one of the protocols:
Frankly I'm not all-knowing in this field. But as far as I know Microsoft has always been able to make a great PRODUCT. Nothing more. Develoment of tandardisation hasn't been their goal, just their tool to attack other companies. While they actually destroy creativity. And a part of the appeal was about Microsoft NOT SHARING THEIR PROTOCOLS.
And if Microsoft decided to pull their products from the EU... Then they would have to refund them all, if I'm not mistaken.
Already Microsofts share dropped 1% after the anouncement. Imagine they'd pull out of Europe...
And they're not market leader because they have the BEST product, they're market leader because they have the best KNOWN product. It's self-perpetuating. Developers make software for windows because most computers have it. Imagine a few hundred million computers without windows... A whole new market opens up. Millions of European software developers would jump on the opportunity to seize the most in the new market. Well, if the instant loss of 5.5 million European servers hasn't crippled the internet (and Microsoft)... Microsoft can't afford to lose such a massive market.
Point 5: You must not understand the US legal system. One judge can rule on an issue and his/her interpertation of the Law could be completely different from another Judge. That is why we have so many legal appeals. In this case the Government was wrong. Microsoft was not a monopoly because they did have competitors, the competitors just sucked. Which isn't the fault of Microsoft. They can't be faulted that Apple OS or Linux can't get marketshare. Of course I understand the system. In the US Microsoft won their appeal. In Europe they lost it. Makes me question the US legal system...
And Microsoft DOES have competitors. For example, in the server market they are far from market leader. Funny how that market isn't easily influenced by advertisement. Advertisement is what dictates the desktop market, remember?
They also have competitors on the console market (first they lost to the PS2, now to the Wii) and does anyone remember the Zune?
Seriously. Microsoft being a succesful company DOES NOT MAKE THEM RIGHT. Which them losing their appeal proves.
First off the EU winning the appeal doesn't make them right anymore then Microsoft winning in the US makes microsoft right. The fact remains that the EU and the US have different laws about free trade. The EU believes more in government intervention and the US believes more in controlling government interference. At least that is how our laws are written.
I didn't mean to imply microsoft invented or created any of the internet protocols. I meant could you imagine trying to send a file if it wasn't Word? Or a graphical presentation that wasn't on powerpoint? etc etc. Microsoft made it simple. They created a marketplace where I can created a spreadsheet, essay explaining that spreadsheet, and graphical examples and then I can mail it to China and they will be able to open it and use it with no changes necessary. That is huge to the marketplace.
Also as someone mentioned before Microsoft did have the better product. They made an OS that would work on any cheap PC. Back when Apple had the chance to make the marketshare more even they wouldn't see beyond pairing their OS with their computer. They made that choice.
Firefox is showing that even though IE is bundled with Windows if a superior product is released it can compete. The problem is that most of these companies filing lawsuits do not have superior products or they refuse to compete price wise.
Why should I want to pay someone for media player software when I can get it for free? Honestly how is this a good thing for the consumer? Joe Schmoe does not care if there is competition for media players because honestly that is confusing to him. He would much rather have it all bundled (good example why bundled PCs do so well and custom PCs are a niche product).
Personally I would rather have a stripped version of Windows. Because I choose not to use some of those features and instead use others. Media player though isn't one of them that I replace. I use Firefox instead of IE though for the added convenience and security.
By the way MadAce you didn't read the arcticle about the lawsuit. Microsoft paid the fine back in 2004 so it isn't about the money. It is about giving an unfair competitive advantage to other companies. It would be like forcing a restuarent to give their competitors the recipe for their secret sauce. Why should they have to? Why shouldn't they be able to sell their soda with their value meal? Forcing Microsoft to take features away from their product is like the vending machine companies forcing fast food places to stop selling drinks with their value meals. It makes no sense for the consumer and in the end the consumer is going to get hurt over this.
(and by consumer I do not mean the power users such as us. I mean the little old lady that can't see the video that her grandkids emailed her because she no longer has a video player. and now instead of getting one for free she has to pay for one and pay someone to install it because she has no idea what was wrong or how to fix it. )
This isn't what antitrust was supposed to be used for. It was supposed to be used to keep a company from being the sole provider of a product. It wasn't meant to be used as a tool to punish a marketplace leader.
First off the EU winning the appeal doesn't make them right anymore then Microsoft winning in the US makes microsoft right. The fact remains that the EU and the US have different laws about free trade. The EU believes more in government intervention and the US believes more in controlling government interference. At least that is how our laws are written. I didn't mean to imply microsoft invented or created any of the internet protocols. I meant could you imagine trying to send a file if it wasn't Word? Or a graphical presentation that wasn't on powerpoint? etc etc. Microsoft made it simple. They created a marketplace where I can created a spreadsheet, essay explaining that spreadsheet, and graphical examples and then I can mail it to China and they will be able to open it and use it with no changes necessary. That is huge to the marketplace. Also as someone mentioned before Microsoft did have the better product. They made an OS that would work on any cheap PC. Back when Apple had the chance to make the marketshare more even they wouldn't see beyond pairing their OS with their computer. They made that choice. Firefox is showing that even though IE is bundled with Windows if a superior product is released it can compete. The problem is that most of these companies filing lawsuits do not have superior products or they refuse to compete price wise. Why should I want to pay someone for media player software when I can get it for free? Honestly how is this a good thing for the consumer? Joe Schmoe does not care if there is competition for media players because honestly that is confusing to him. He would much rather have it all bundled (good example why bundled PCs do so well and custom PCs are a niche product). Personally I would rather have a stripped version of Windows. Because I choose not to use some of those features and instead use others. Media player though isn't one of them that I replace. I use Firefox instead of IE though for the added convenience and security. By the way MadAce you didn't read the arcticle about the lawsuit. Microsoft paid the fine back in 2004 so it isn't about the money. It is about giving an unfair competitive advantage to other companies. It would be like forcing a restuarent to give their competitors the recipe for their secret sauce. Why should they have to? Why shouldn't they be able to sell their soda with their value meal? Forcing Microsoft to take features away from their product is like the vending machine companies forcing fast food places to stop selling drinks with their value meals. It makes no sense for the consumer and in the end the consumer is going to get hurt over this. (and by consumer I do not mean the power users such as us. I mean the little old lady that can't see the video that her grandkids emailed her because she no longer has a video player. and now instead of getting one for free she has to pay for one and pay someone to install it because she has no idea what was wrong or how to fix it. ) This isn't what antitrust was supposed to be used for. It was supposed to be used to keep a company from being the sole provider of a product. It wasn't meant to be used as a tool to punish a marketplace leader.
Why do you keep insisting you're a legal whiz? Is it because you're unable to refute my arguments with facts? Is that it? You sent those job applications to Microsoft and the EU yet?
BTW, I wouldn't try to use *.doc as your default company format. Use *.pdf if you plan to spread it around the world. That was why it was invented, remember?
Just like nobody is as crazy to use access when they can use oracle.
"Advocates of a laissez-faire economic policy are quick to assert (barring private criminal conduct) that a coercive monopoly can only come about through government intervention, and defend these situations as non-coercive monopolies in which government should not intervene. They argue that competition with these monopolies is open to any firm that can offer lower prices or better products —that competition is not excluded. They claim that these monopolies keep their prices low precisely because they are not exempt from competitive forces. In other words, the possibility of competition arising indeed affects their pricing and production decisions. A coercive monopoly would be able to price-gouge consumers secure with the knowledge that no competition will develop. Some see the fact that prices are low as lending evidence to the assertion that a monopoly is a non-coercive monopoly."
There this quote from wikipedia says it better then I can. Companies like Microsoft keep their prices competitive because they know they are not a monopoly. If they were they could charge outlandish prices and people would be forced to pay it. But the fact that their is the possibility of competition drives their price down.
Also I don't know why you keep up with the personal attacks. Just because I think that the US legal system got it right and the EU one got it wrong doesn't mean I am all of a sudden smarter then the people working there. Obviously the EU judges felt differently then the US ones. The markets are different, the political systems are different, and the legal systems are differnt. So of course the outcomes could be different. That doesn't mean that you need to continue attacking me personally.
What I would love is for someone to show me why Microsoft having media player included in their windows software is a bad thing for the consumer. Anyone that wouldn't want it there sure knows how to uninstall it. So really in the end how does it make the product better for us?
Really it doesn't. As I said earlier this is about some companies that were upset that they couldn't make their money on an inferior value product. Because honestly if their product was better and priced competitively enough then they would be beating Microsoft. Google is a great example of this. Microsoft wanted to be a leader in the search engine marketplace pretty badly and yet they are getting thier butts handed to them by Google. Even though pretty much every PC starts by directing you to the MSN website. Google is still winning that battle. Also in the example mentioned earlier. The wii is considered a better product value by the mass market and is beating the Xbox360. Both of those examples prove that when faced with competition that has a better product at a better value, Microsoft can be beat.
"Advocates of a laissez-faire economic policy are quick to assert (barring private criminal conduct) that a coercive monopoly can only come about through government intervention, and defend these situations as non-coercive monopolies in which government should not intervene. They argue that competition with these monopolies is open to any firm that can offer lower prices or better products —that competition is not excluded. They claim that these monopolies keep their prices low precisely because they are not exempt from competitive forces. In other words, the possibility of competition arising indeed affects their pricing and production decisions. A coercive monopoly would be able to price-gouge consumers secure with the knowledge that no competition will develop. Some see the fact that prices are low as lending evidence to the assertion that a monopoly is a non-coercive monopoly."
There this quote from wikipedia says it better then I can. Companies like Microsoft keep their prices competitive because they know they are not a monopoly. If they were they could charge outlandish prices and people would be forced to pay it. But the fact that their is the possibility of competition drives their price down.
Also I don't know why you keep up with the personal attacks. Just because I think that the US legal system got it right and the EU one got it wrong doesn't mean I am all of a sudden smarter then the people working there. Obviously the EU judges felt differently then the US ones. The markets are different, the political systems are different, and the legal systems are differnt. So of course the outcomes could be different. That doesn't mean that you need to continue attacking me personally. What I would love is for someone to show me why Microsoft having media player included in their windows software is a bad thing for the consumer. Anyone that wouldn't want it there sure knows how to uninstall it. So really in the end how does it make the product better for us? Really it doesn't. As I said earlier this is about some companies that were upset that they couldn't make their money on an inferior value product. Because honestly if their product was better and priced competitively enough then they would be beating Microsoft. Google is a great example of this. Microsoft wanted to be a leader in the search engine marketplace pretty badly and yet they are getting thier butts handed to them by Google. Even though pretty much every PC starts by directing you to the MSN website. Google is still winning that battle. Also in the example mentioned earlier. The wii is considered a better product value by the mass market and is beating the Xbox360. Both of those examples prove that when faced with competition that has a better product at a better value, Microsoft can be beat.
I'm not attacking you personally. I'm attacking your behaviour which is consitently ignoring my arguments, questioning the result of 13 years of proceedings and continueing to judge without realizing that every half-assed (compared to legally sound ones) argument you can possibly fathom has been adressed in the proceedings.
Frankly, I'm not going to debate with you (tho I generally only classify conversations where NO arguments are being ignored as a contstructive debate) about who's right as there actually was a court ruling about it.
First you claim Microsoft can abandon the European market, I disprove it. Then you claim Microsoft has given us the ability to globally communicate, which I again disprove.... What's the point?
BTW, if I were to claim Michael Jackson is a dragon then posting a clear definition of a dragon wouldn't prove that he is one.
So if you're at all interested in anything but your own subjective opinion I invite you to read the whole ruling. Have fun. Strange it's in pdf, isn't it? Anyways, the part you'll be most interested in starts at page 210.
You didn't disprove anything. Microsoft could abandon the EU market just like they could abandon the US market. Just like they could decide that they were going to design Christmas trees. You can not deny the fact that it would hurt the Marketplace more then it would hurt a company with 29 billion dollars in cash reserves. Not even counting the rest of their assets. Microsoft could choose to close down shop and would still be considered a resounding success.
I said that Microsoft made it easier to communicate around the world do to having universal programs. That does make it easier. It would be a lot harder to talk to work together if we were all on seperate systems.
The ruling doesn't matter to me because while your EU ruling does affect how they do business in the EU, it has no affect on how they do business here in the US. So what will end up happening is the EU will end up with an inferior product to the US. Since Microsoft will have to strip their product to provide it to the EU companies. The ruling there doesn't supercede the ruling that the US courts already made.
So really all that matters is which court ruling you want to believe and which country you are in. The EU ruling has nothing to do with me what so ever and has no affect on me personally.
You didn't disprove anything. Microsoft could abandon the EU market just like they could abandon the US market. Just like they could decide that they were going to design Christmas trees. You can not deny the fact that it would hurt the Marketplace more then it would hurt a company with 29 billion dollars in cash reserves. Not even counting the rest of their assets. Microsoft could choose to close down shop and would still be considered a resounding success. I said that Microsoft made it easier to communicate around the world do to having universal programs. That does make it easier. It would be a lot harder to talk to work together if we were all on seperate systems. The ruling doesn't matter to me because while your EU ruling does affect how they do business in the EU, it has no affect on how they do business here in the US. So what will end up happening is the EU will end up with an inferior product to the US. Since Microsoft will have to strip their product to provide it to the EU companies. The ruling there doesn't supercede the ruling that the US courts already made.
So really all that matters is which court ruling you want to believe and which country you are in. The EU ruling has nothing to do with me what so ever and has no affect on me personally.
Are you being serious?
Honestly do you have a clue how companies work?
I respect your opinion, but this is going beyond an opinion.
Do you really think that if MS will quit the European market MS will survive?
The fact that Microsoft has millions of reserve cash doesn't make a shit of a difference.
Business and today economy don't work that way, I am afraid.
We are living in the age of the global economy and MS CANNOT afford to pull out from any worldwide market, whether this is the EU, the US or Asia.
A company may have billions of dollars of debts and still being a healthy company, while at the same time another company could have billions of cash flow but being worth peanuts.
What make a company healthy is not the cash reserve (although it helps) but:
1) The capacity of produce profit for the investors
2) The amount of money each share is worth on the stock market.
Now if MS gets out of the EU market, that will mean 2 things:
1) That the profit for the shareholders will be cut considerably, making MS a bad company to invest to.
2) The shares value will plunge exposing the company to a possible hostile takeover from other companies, and who knows, it might happen that MS could be bought by an EU company, how amusing would that be?
On top of this, as Madace mentioned already, a pull out of MS from the EU market will free a huge market gap which can be filled EASILY by any other company.
Designing an OS isn't complicated, but convincing software houses and game publishers to support it, that is the biggest problem.
The issue about MS monopoly at the moment is the challenge to convince consumers to change to another OS, it would be much more easy to force people to do so due to the sudden unavailability of MS on the EU market.
Trust me, MS will do a big favour to EU software companies if it decide to do so..
If 450 millions European will adopt the new OS, all the other software companies and game pubblishers will be forced to produce games and softare for the new OS (at the moment this doesn't happen due to the dominance of MS), the same way it happens when they produce games for the different games consoles.
That could spell the end of MS as a dominating OS and the new European OS could even gain share markets in Asia and America too.
It is a bit of an hypothetical scenario, but obviously MS will never do anything so silly to pull out a lucrative market like the EU, no matter how many fines they will get.
Only someone with zero economic knowledge could come up with such a silly theory, not certainly MS bosses.
MS is just a frikking company like any other, and companies in EU do as they told, unlike what happens in US where you think that big corporations are untoucheable (although that's your choice and we respect that).
PS: This is not about deciding who is right or wrong like you put it, this is about the right for each country to decide which rules to adopt for the companies who wants to make business in their respective market.
MS is a monopoly and that's a fact, look at definition of monopoly on the vocabulary, doesn't take a genious to understand that.
The fact that this monopoly is well deserved because MS was the first to think about a software that could make computer more user friendly, it is something I can agree with you.
But still a monopoly is, and each country has the right to deal with it the way they want to.
"If a monopoly is not protected from competition by law, then it is subject to competitive forces. However, with enough market share, a company or group can partially plan and control the market through strategic product updates or lower prices - potential competition can be thwarted, while demand for the dominant company's output can be preferentially developed. Hence, within free economies, planned sub-economies can arise."
And this is the case for MS whether you like it or not, and that's what the EU is trying to fight.
You didn't disprove anything. Microsoft could abandon the EU market just like they could abandon the US market. Just like they could decide that they were going to design Christmas trees. You can not deny the fact that it would hurt the Marketplace more then it would hurt a company with 29 billion dollars in cash reserves. Not even counting the rest of their assets. Microsoft could choose to close down shop and would still be considered a resounding success. I said that Microsoft made it easier to communicate around the world do to having universal programs. That does make it easier. It would be a lot harder to talk to work together if we were all on seperate systems. The ruling doesn't matter to me because while your EU ruling does affect how they do business in the EU, it has no affect on how they do business here in the US. So what will end up happening is the EU will end up with an inferior product to the US. Since Microsoft will have to strip their product to provide it to the EU companies. The ruling there doesn't supercede the ruling that the US courts already made.
So really all that matters is which court ruling you want to believe and which country you are in. The EU ruling has nothing to do with me what so ever and has no affect on me personally.
Are you being serious?
Honestly do you have a clue how companies work?
I respect your opinion, but this is going beyond an opinion.
Do you really think that if MS will quit the European market MS will survive?
The fact that Microsoft has millions of reserve cash doesn't make a shit of a difference.
Business and today economy don't work that way, I am afraid.
We are living in the age of the global economy and MS CANNOT afford to pull out from any worldwide market, whether this is the EU, the US or Asia.
A company may have billions of dollars of debts and still being a healthy company, while at the same time another company could have billions of cash flow but being worth peanuts.
What make a company healthy is not the cash reserve (although it helps) but:
1) The capacity of produce profit for the investors
2) The amount of money each share is worth on the stock market.
Now if MS gets out of the EU market, that will mean 2 things:
1) That the profit for the shareholders will be cut considerably, making MS a bad company to invest to.
2) The shares value will plunge exposing the company to a possible hostile takeover from other companies, and who knows, it might happen that MS could be bought by an EU company, how amusing would that be?
On top of this, as Madace mentioned already, a pull out of MS from the EU market will free a huge market gap which can be filled EASILY by any other company.
Designing an OS isn't complicated, but convincing software houses and game publishers to support it, that is the biggest problem.
The issue about MS monopoly at the moment is the challenge to convince consumers to change to another OS, it would be much more easy to force people to do so due to the sudden unavailability of MS on the EU market.
Trust me, MS will do a big favour to EU software companies if it decide to do so..
If 450 millions European will adopt the new OS, all the other software companies and game pubblishers will be forced to produce games and softare for the new OS (at the moment this doesn't happen due to the dominance of MS), the same way it happens when they produce games for the different games consoles.
That could spell the end of MS as a dominating OS and the new European OS could even gain share markets in Asia and America too.
It is a bit of an hypothetical scenario, but obviously MS will never do anything so silly to pull out a lucrative market like the EU, no matter how many fines they will get.
Only someone with zero economic knowledge could come up with such a silly theory, not certainly MS bosses.
MS is just a frikking company like any other, and companies in EU do as they told, unlike what happens in US where you think that big corporations are untoucheable (although that's your choice and we respect that).
PS: This is not about deciding who is right or wrong like you put it, this is about the right for each country to decide which rules to adopt for the companies who wants to make business in their respective market.
MS is a monopoly and that's a fact, look at definition of monopoly on the vocabulary, doesn't take a genious to understand that.
The fact that this monopoly is well deserved because MS was the first to think about a software that could make computer more user friendly, it is something I can agree with you.
But still a monopoly is, and each country has the right to deal with it the way they want to.
"If a monopoly is not protected from competition by law, then it is subject to competitive forces. However, with enough market share, a company or group can partially plan and control the market through strategic product updates or lower prices - potential competition can be thwarted, while demand for the dominant company's output can be preferentially developed. Hence, within free economies, planned sub-economies can arise."
And this is the case for MS whether you like it or not, and that's what the EU is trying to fight.
First off Microsoft is not a monopoly. Consumers can choose to purchase an Apple computer with Apple's OS or they can choose to use Linux. That makes it not a monopoly. Just because they have the best product and so are chosen by the most consumers does not make them a monopoly. Microsoft doesn't own the computers and they aren't forcing them to have windows software.
Secondly I never said Microsoft would survive. I said they would still be considered a successful company. Meaning past tense. As I said they could choose to launch a christmas tree company and with 29 billion dollars in cash alone they would be fine. They would no longer be making 1 billion dollars per month though. But I am sure they could subsidize themselves for years. That was my point. Not any point about whether they could still be the dominating force in the marketplace while losing a third of their customers. Potentially they could still be a viable software company and still be profitable. Just not 1 billion per month in cash profitable.
Not many companies make the kind of money that Microsoft does. They put what 2 billion dollars in losses into their console game market to buy their way in. And it seems to have been a pretty decent gamble.
To find a company with similar power in their respective marketplaces would be hard to do. Maybe ExxonMobile? Maybe JPMorgan Case or Citigroup? But really it would be hard.
That was the point I was trying to make. That Microsoft could cease to exist today and would still go down in history as one of (if not THE) most successful companies ever.
You didn't disprove anything. Microsoft could abandon the EU market just like they could abandon the US market. Just like they could decide that they were going to design Christmas trees. You can not deny the fact that it would hurt the Marketplace more then it would hurt a company with 29 billion dollars in cash reserves. Not even counting the rest of their assets. Microsoft could choose to close down shop and would still be considered a resounding success. I said that Microsoft made it easier to communicate around the world do to having universal programs. That does make it easier. It would be a lot harder to talk to work together if we were all on seperate systems. The ruling doesn't matter to me because while your EU ruling does affect how they do business in the EU, it has no affect on how they do business here in the US. So what will end up happening is the EU will end up with an inferior product to the US. Since Microsoft will have to strip their product to provide it to the EU companies. The ruling there doesn't supercede the ruling that the US courts already made.
So really all that matters is which court ruling you want to believe and which country you are in. The EU ruling has nothing to do with me what so ever and has no affect on me personally.
See what ste2000 said. It's perfect.
The simple notion that a company with 29 billion dollars in reserve (woooooooow) and representing 79 000 employees could play chicken with a trade bloc representing 30.3% of the worlds GDP (13.6 trillion $, that's 13 600 billion $) and representing 494 million people and could actually win is absurd.
The world simply doesn't work like that.
I've pointed out that Microsoft doesn't make anything "easier" by monopolizing. That's not their goal. They're not developing things to make it easier, they're developing to sell. Hence why they parasite on other companies.
And why do you think professional companies generally choose to work with Oracle/openoffice/... ? Because although popular MS doesn't provide the best products overall. Sure, I use their OS. But only because other companies don't develop for Linux, which I would much rather use, thank you very much.
Why? Because I'm not an unknowing consumer. That's why.
But this isn't the discussion.
Do you honestly think the EU rulings don't affect your user experience? Tssss.
Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel:
"There may be times in the future when we'll add new features into Windows and need to address them in some different way because of today's decision."
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer:
"we've already adopted voluntary standards for how we integrate new features into our products in order to preserve competitive opportunities,"
And I've already read some interesting opinions on the ruling.
To technology analyst Rob Enderle, the impact of the decision is the loss of U.S. control over regulating multinationals. The EC "is taking center stage in large commercial activities in the world market. In my experience, you don't see that," he said. In contrast to the U.S., the EC "is showing itself to be a much more avid believer in being a central power broker for commerce."
Because of the U.S. government's diplomatic work to maintain a coalition with European powers since the start of the Iraq War, the administration did not challenge the EC's authority over Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior, Enderle says.
If not for the political realities earlier in the decade, "the U.S. would have made a pretty good stink about this," Enderle says. "Now, other companies wanting to take on a dominant player will take their cases to Europe for litigation."
This poses the danger that "U.S. law becomes redundant and powerless, because this is a world-market action," Enderle says. "Once the [EC] has established itself as the world body that's willing to do this," the U.S. will have difficulty retaking regulatory control over multinationals.
Personally I think this will upset the balance in the short term, but will prove to be beneficial in the long term. But I would also like to see more of a corelation between the EU and the US policy in the matter.
As I am a tad ignorant of EU trade policy and law, I have a question. Can Microsoft challenge this on a country by country basis, or are all member states bound by this ruling so long as they remain members of the EU? Basically, are there loopholes for Microsoft to exploit?
I was kind of amused reading through the stories, thinking to myself 'Gee...this is exactly what we charged them with in the States.' Guess it worked out a little differently.
I didn't say that Microsoft could still be as successful or as dominant or as profitable if they cut out the EU market. I said that they would be better off in the short term then the EU would be. Yes other companies would fill the void, but no one is in a place right now to take full advantage of it. No one would all of a sudden be able to provide the same level of service that Microsoft does to their consumers. Sure other companies would fill in but then it would take time for all the other software to adapt to multiple different Operating Systems. Plus as you said yourself MadAce it would wreck havoc on the global economy.
My point wasn't about doing the best thing or the right thing. My point was that Billy boy could take his toys home and play the part of the spoiled three year old and not share anymore. And for quite a while it would hurt them more then it would hurt Billy Boy. He has already said that he is giving away his money to Charity. So he obviously has a lot less interest in maintaining the dominating position that Microsoft currently has, compared to say 10 years ago when he was hungry and still building up more power.
That was my point about the pulling out of EU comment.
Sure the ruling in the long term may have some effects on me, or it might get overturned by the Supreme Court of the EU. Or the next President might kick the EU in the figurative balls and say leave Microsoft alone. We don't know. The only thing we do know is that the Current President doesn't have the Political Capital to tell the EU to blow their nose, much less dictate this case. But that could very quickly change with the new President.
Once again you are both missing my point. I didn't say that Microsoft could still be as successful or as dominant or as profitable if they cut out the EU market. I said that they would be better off in the short term then the EU would be. Yes other companies would fill the void, but no one is in a place right now to take full advantage of it. No one would all of a sudden be able to provide the same level of service that Microsoft does to their consumers. Sure other companies would fill in but then it would take time for all the other software to adapt to multiple different Operating Systems. Plus as you said yourself MadAce it would wreck havoc on the global economy.
My point wasn't about doing the best thing or the right thing. My point was that Billy boy could take his toys home and play the part of the spoiled three year old and not share anymore. And for quite a while it would hurt them more then it would hurt Billy Boy. He has already said that he is giving away his money to Charity. So he obviously has a lot less interest in maintaining the dominating position that Microsoft currently has, compared to say 10 years ago when he was hungry and still building up more power.
That was my point about the pulling out of EU comment.
Sure the ruling in the long term may have some effects on me, or it might get overturned by the Supreme Court of the EU. Or the next President might kick the EU in the figurative balls and say leave Microsoft alone. We don't know. The only thing we do know is that the Current President doesn't have the Political Capital to tell the EU to blow their nose, much less dictate this case. But that could very quickly change with the new President.
5.5 millions servers shutting down (and subsequently the internet, depsite the many millions more running on Linux) would make Microsofts share vaporate overnight. That's I'll I'm going to say about it. You can continue pretending this isn't true.
Billy Boy isn't the ceo of Microsoft anymore.
And the US whining because the of the EU's decision... Pffft. Was to be expected. Yet another small battle in the economical worldwar between the US and the EU and China and India and Brazil and South-Africa...
Comments
Say what you want about how Microsoft sucks, but their software unified the world under basically one operating system (for better or worse) and now it is much easier for developers to code games that reach all of us (ask MAC users how much fun it is to be the odd man out) and when I create a Word document, damn near everyone on the Internet can download and read it.
We needed standards, and MS provided them. Right now they are being fined for giving away free software as part of their operating system, which means that some other company loses out on the opportunity to charge me for it...... oh yeah...thats a real improvement, sure glad I'm getting that choice....
Oh wait..I live in the US...i won't have to face that problem.
Absolutely agree with you, Kyleran; just the ridiculous number of similar-yet-different operating systems in the early PC days were a pain in the backside. Operations as simple as putting information on a 5.25" floppy and moving it from one system to another were difficult just because of the varied formatting standards. UGH!
While I certainly don't agree with all of Microsoft's decisions, I appreciate, like you, the fact that they've managed to standardize what was initially chaotic. Sure, they brute-forced their way to their current position, but honestly, they aren't entirely to blame (or be lionized) for their current success.
If Apple had stepped off of their "only on our hardware" soapbox way back when and focused just a little bit more on business applications, they probably would at least have equal market share. It's just a simple fact that businesses don't want to be told they have to shell out double or triple the investment to get a product they could pay significantly less for on cheaper hardware.
It's a shame that Microsoft has become too big to seriously consider just cutting the EU off. What they should do is tell the court that they will gladly reimburse all EU customers who return a legal copy of Windows and discontinue its sale in the EU. That way the EU won't have to worry about bundled free applications in their operating system. They can just use a different operating system. Next thing you know some idiot will sue to have the calculator removed. It's ridiculous.
Honestly, it's not like those who prefer a specific media player can't just install it and set it to be the default handler for their media.
Just because your average consumer finds Windows Media Player to have all of the features they require and prefers not to bother installing another media player doesn't indicate a monopoly. What it indicates is that Microsoft is delivering a competitive item for free, which as Kyleran pointed out, is what really rankles the companies/individuals who brought the suit in the first place; that they can't charge you for something that is being provided gratis. So, since they can't seem to convince anyone to purchase their alternative, they'll get their money another way; by bringing a lawsuit.
Similarly, no one is forcing them to use Windows. They are more than welcome to develop and distribute their own operating system throughout the EU or to adopt the use of an existing competitor.
A monopoly exists when there is no viable choice. Not when there are choices but they are less desirable than what the consumer already has.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq
Adnihilo
Beorn Judge's Edge
Somnulus
Perfect Black
----------------------
Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2
Everquest / Everquest 2
Anarchy Online
Shadowbane
Dark Age of Camelot
Star Wars Galaxies
Matrix Online
World of Warcraft
Guild Wars
City of Heroes
Say what you want about how Microsoft sucks, but their software unified the world under basically one operating system (for better or worse) and now it is much easier for developers to code games that reach all of us (ask MAC users how much fun it is to be the odd man out) and when I create a Word document, damn near everyone on the Internet can download and read it.
We needed standards, and MS provided them. Right now they are being fined for giving away free software as part of their operating system, which means that some other company loses out on the opportunity to charge me for it...... oh yeah...thats a real improvement, sure glad I'm getting that choice....
Oh wait..I live in the US...i won't have to face that problem.
Absolutely agree with you, Kyleran; just the ridiculous number of similar-yet-different operating systems in the early PC days were a pain in the backside. Operations as simple as putting information on a 5.25" floppy and moving it from one system to another were difficult just because of the varied formatting standards. UGH!
While I certainly don't agree with all of Microsoft's decisions, I appreciate, like you, the fact that they've managed to standardize what was initially chaotic. Sure, they brute-forced their way to their current position, but honestly, they aren't entirely to blame (or be lionized) for their current success.
If Apple had stepped off of their "only on our hardware" soapbox way back when and focused just a little bit more on business applications, they probably would at least have equal market share. It's just a simple fact that businesses don't want to be told they have to shell out double or triple the investment to get a product they could pay significantly less for on cheaper hardware.
It's a shame that Microsoft has become too big to seriously consider just cutting the EU off. What they should do is tell the court that they will gladly reimburse all EU customers who return a legal copy of Windows and discontinue its sale in the EU. That way the EU won't have to worry about bundled free applications in their operating system. They can just use a different operating system. Next thing you know some idiot will sue to have the calculator removed. It's ridiculous.
Honestly, it's not like those who prefer a specific media player can't just install it and set it to be the default handler for their media.
Just because your average consumer finds Windows Media Player to have all of the features they require and prefers not to bother installing another media player doesn't indicate a monopoly. What it indicates is that Microsoft is delivering a competitive item for free, which as Kyleran pointed out, is what really rankles the companies/individuals who brought the suit in the first place; that they can't charge you for something that is being provided gratis. So, since they can't seem to convince anyone to purchase their alternative, they'll get their money another way; by bringing a lawsuit.
Similarly, no one is forcing them to use Windows. They are more than welcome to develop and distribute their own operating system throughout the EU or to adopt the use of an existing competitor.
A monopoly exists when there is no viable choice. Not when there are choices but they are less desirable than what the consumer already has.
Wrte to the lawyers of the EU. And of Microsoft. After over 14 years of proceedings they obviously haven't figured out what you said.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Aye you are great.
And of course MS is going to listen to you and renounce to a third of its profits.
You need a reality check mate.
MS is the only one that has all the interests to stay in Europe and abide its rules.
The US isn't the biggest economy market, the EU is. Just remember that.
But I am sure that Bill Gates is aware of this small detail, therefore you won't see MS out of Europe any time soon..............
Ahh, now on the case of PLATFORM systems I can totally agree with you on that Kyleran and others after reading again, but I was talking more on the lines of general PC software, I can't say the same for PC's because I'm a windows user myself, but for consoles I get incredibly annoyed when a new console comes out every two or three years claiming to be next generation and they only have like three decent games on them which I consider to be a complete waste of money. When it comes to software though I think it's always a good idea to have a bit of variety, if you look at 3D modelling software for instance that's an area that can always have improvement, I remember reading on wikipedia about how autodesk and some other company that was starting to develop Maya ( sorry, think I need to look it up properly again, so correct me if I'm wrong ) merged together when microsoft were trying to buyout a company/software called Softimage, it's those kind of business practices that Microsoft do I find ridiculous, again for something like the PC I can totally understand the need for a single platform because it would be just silly if we had to keep changing constantly for different software or games.
Oh and on the European comments, it's isolationists like you lot that are the very reason why so many people seem to hate America these days, thankfully though, I don't stereotype as much as some people do, so I have my share of friends there as well as around the world.
Quoting people doesn't make you clever, in fact, it makes you all the more stupid for not bothering to read the quotes you post in the first place.
I would love a stripped down version of Windows without Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer, Outlook, MSN Explorer, Windows Firewall, MSN Games, and the managery of stuff it installs with that I instantly un-install.
hey u should post more often,thats a damm good idea.haha ahh the truth of it is so sweet..europe is so funny
A larger font doesn't make you smarter. In your case silence does.
ahhh...look at it like this america is the head and europe this the tail !!!!
"this the tail" ??
Don't let his bad spelling, lack of grammar, crappy punctuation and non-existent argumentation dstract you from his perfect analysis of global politics.
Didn't your mommy teach you if you don't have something nice to say to keep your mouth shut, Ya'll don't have nothing ever nice to say about nobody when ever they don't hold up to your standards,And who would want to argue with u any way, ya'll believe you are above it all. And if wasn't the US you would be speaking german any how .
do u like that ya'll part i sure do...
If it wasn't for Europe, the US as it is today would not exist.
wow, refering to past events is awesome!!!111one.
hey u should post more often,thats a damm good idea.haha ahh the truth of it is so sweet..europe is so funny
A larger font doesn't make you smarter. In your case silence does.
ahhh...look at it like this america is the head and europe this the tail !!!!
"this the tail" ??
Don't let his bad spelling, lack of grammar, crappy punctuation and non-existent argumentation dstract you from his perfect analysis of global politics.
Didn't your mommy teach you if you don't have something nice to say to keep your mouth shut, Ya'll don't have nothing ever nice to say about nobody when ever they don't hold up to your standards,And who would want to argue with u any way, ya'll believe you are above it all. And if wasn't the US you would be speaking german any how .
do u like that ya'll part i sure do...
I'm not going to compliment someone for living up to my awesome standards. Which are that you don't behave like a retard. And if you claim something (for example "y'all wud be speakin like german if twasn fo the good ol us o' a, fuggin hippies") back it up wth some arguments. And spelling and punctuation would be nice too. Darn, I really AM demanding, aren't I?
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Didn't your mommy teach you if you don't have something nice to say to keep your mouth shut, Ya'll don't have nothing ever nice to say about nobody when ever they don't hold up to your standards,And who would want to argue with u any way, ya'll believe you are above it all. And if wasn't the US you would be speaking german any how .
do u like that ya'll part i sure do...
Aye than you should be the first one to keep your hole well locked.
Obviously i agree with what Gameloading is saying.
Without Europe you will still sending smoke signal to comunicate with each other.
How about that? Easy to forget the part of History you don't like.
Also you need to get used to the fact that the US is going to lose its position as the dominant economic and military superpower, so you all need to start being nice to people and stop treating non US citizens like second rate people who doesn't know a shit (In this case, I am referring to the narrow minded people who attacked the EU because it dared to penalise a US company)
The world cought up with US and is going to overtake it, if you didn't realised that yet.
The EU is already the biggest economic market and China is going soon too overtake US in the military departement.
History changes all the time, sometimes is good for you sometimes is not.
Don't bring up history facts to justify your arguments of alleged superiority of your country.
Stick with actual facts in order to support your arguments, don't use things happened 60 years ago.
First off Microsoft is not a Monopoly. It is unfair to them to force them to release code for free to competitiors. As said before these competitors could choose to develop their software on a competing platform and refuse to work with Windows.
Secondly Monopolies aren't always bad. The big telephone company back before it got busted up by antitrust laws actually provided better service at a lower price then after it got broken up. In some cases competition actually is bad for the marketplace. Especially with something that needs uniformity and standards.
I too think it would be funny to see Billy boy just pull out. It isn't like the company needs the money. Honestly they could hold the EU hostage more so then the EU can hold them hostage. Because whether we like it or not, Windows is the dominant service currently in the marketplace (and remember we don't own our software we are leasing it due to Digital copyright laws). So honestly Microsoft could do worse then just pull out the software on the shelfs and the support system for the EU. They could turn off every European copy of Windows by disabling their security code in their system. Last time I heard Microsoft is sitting on a pile of money numbering in the 100 billions.
Also, Microsoft didn't bitchslap the US Government. We have different laws then the EU and our laws protect the right of a company to make money and become a dominant force in the marketplace.
Really what Microsoft should do is not bundle it with Windows anymore but have it be part of the automatic updates. That way the average joe is still going to get it for free. They shouldn't be forced to give up their code though, especially not for free. That is just plain ridiculous.
War Beta Tester
1: If your analysis were to be correct don't you think either Micro$oft or the EU would have figured them out in 13 or 14 years of proceedings?
2: Half of the things you say are bullshit. Microsoft isn't sitting on hundreds of billions. Companies don't sit on their money. They invest it. Buy bonds with it. Whatever. They never, ever sit on it. Because it would just devaluate. Also, there are perfectly good reasons to FORCE Microsoft to release part of their code. because if they wouldn't... It would be impossible for companies to make alternatives for MSN/MP/... .
3: Because of the former they also can't afford to pull out of the largest single market on the planet. Not to mention the friggin Eurosphere. Abandoning that market of about a billion souls (Eurosphere included) would make a massive market open to any competitor of Microsoft. This will make almost unlimited funds available for those competitors making a true alternative for Windows available. Something Microsoft won't be able to stop. And just as FireFox is taking over from IE, those competitors (as they will be a lot more free in terms of structure and legislation (undoubtedly thanks to Eu legislation)) will be able to kick Microsoft in the balls.
And cut them off? Do you honestly think the internet would continue to function if the entire EU would be cut of from operating systems? Get real. THousands of servers (of US companies too) would seize to function and imagine the impact on the world market. The US trade deficit would explode (yes, even more) overnight.
4: Uniformity and structure? Sure. Shame Microsoft doesn't actually provide that. Uniformity and structure is being provided by other companies. By organisations whose job it is to provide uniformity and structure. Boohoo.
5: Yes, Microsoft bitchslapped the US government. Of course it did.
On April 3, 2000, a judgment was handed down in the case of United States v. Microsoft,[15] calling the company an "abusive monopoly"[6] and forcing the company to split into two separate units. Part of this ruling was later overturned by a federal appeals court, and eventually settled with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2001.
You don't honestly think the US would accept this hegemony if t had a choice, do you?
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/309852_software02.html
Oh I am sorry Microsoft has chosen to reduce their cash balances by dividends and repurchasing their own stock. Back in April of this year they had 29 billion dollars in cash reserves. Down from about 65 billion in 2004 and the first time in 5 years that they had less then 30 billion dollars in cash reserves.
War Beta Tester
1: If your analysis were to be correct don't you think either Micro$oft or the EU would have figured them out in 13 or 14 years of proceedings?
2: Half of the things you say are bullshit. Microsoft isn't sitting on hundreds of billions. Companies don't sit on their money. They invest it. Buy bonds with it. Whatever. They never, ever sit on it. Because it would just devaluate. Also, there are perfectly good reasons to FORCE Microsoft to release part of their code. because if they wouldn't... It would be impossible for companies to make alternatives for MSN/MP/... .
3: Because of the former they also can't afford to pull out of the largest single market on the planet. Not to mention the friggin Eurosphere. Abandoning that market of about a billion souls (Eurosphere included) would make a massive market open to any competitor of Microsoft. This will make almost unlimited funds available for those competitors making a true alternative for Windows available. Something Microsoft won't be able to stop. And just as FireFox is taking over from IE, those competitors (as they will be a lot more free in terms of structure and legislation (undoubtedly thanks to Eu legislation)) will be able to kick Microsoft in the balls.
And cut them off? Do you honestly think the internet would continue to function if the entire EU would be cut of from operating systems? Get real. THousands of servers (of US companies too) would seize to function and imagine the impact on the world market. The US trade deficit would explode (yes, even more) overnight.
4: Uniformity and structure? Sure. Shame Microsoft doesn't actually provide that. Uniformity and structure is being provided by other companies. By organisations whose job it is to provide uniformity and structure. Boohoo.
5: Yes, Microsoft bitchslapped the US government. Of course it did.
On April 3, 2000, a judgment was handed down in the case of United States v. Microsoft,[15] calling the company an "abusive monopoly"[6] and forcing the company to split into two separate units. Part of this ruling was later overturned by a federal appeals court, and eventually settled with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2001.
You don't honestly think the US would accept this hegemony if t had a choice, do you?
Point 1: No they don't care. Both are looking from their own point of views and neither wants to look at it from the logical middle ground. That is the problem with people today.Point 2: as I said in my reply I was off on the amount but honestly 100 billion or 29 billion there is not a real huge difference. Microsoft has always been a company that keeps tons of Cash on hand. Just for these reasons. This is the first year in the past 5 years that htey have had less then 30 billion in cash reserves.
Point 3: Of course they could afford it. They could stop making products and even the friggen receptionist could be rich. They have said before they have made money hand over fist and could completely pull out if they felt like it. They could turn around and decide that they were done and still have plenty of cash to pay off their stockholders and be done with it. It doesn't mean they will and I honestly think the EU would cave in before waiting on Competitors to get their product out.
Point 4: There was no uniformity or structure in the OS place before Microsoft. They have allowed us to be able to communicate across the globe. They have done so at a relatively fair market value with a decent product. Could it be better? Well no one has been able to provide a better product yet, otherwise they would be the marketplace leader.
Point 5: You must not understand the US legal system. One judge can rule on an issue and his/her interpertation of the Law could be completely different from another Judge. That is why we have so many legal appeals. In this case the Government was wrong. Microsoft was not a monopoly because they did have competitors, the competitors just sucked. Which isn't the fault of Microsoft. They can't be faulted that Apple OS or Linux can't get marketshare.
War Beta Tester
1: If your analysis were to be correct don't you think either Micro$oft or the EU would have figured them out in 13 or 14 years of proceedings?
2: Half of the things you say are bullshit. Microsoft isn't sitting on hundreds of billions. Companies don't sit on their money. They invest it. Buy bonds with it. Whatever. They never, ever sit on it. Because it would just devaluate. Also, there are perfectly good reasons to FORCE Microsoft to release part of their code. because if they wouldn't... It would be impossible for companies to make alternatives for MSN/MP/... .
3: Because of the former they also can't afford to pull out of the largest single market on the planet. Not to mention the friggin Eurosphere. Abandoning that market of about a billion souls (Eurosphere included) would make a massive market open to any competitor of Microsoft. This will make almost unlimited funds available for those competitors making a true alternative for Windows available. Something Microsoft won't be able to stop. And just as FireFox is taking over from IE, those competitors (as they will be a lot more free in terms of structure and legislation (undoubtedly thanks to Eu legislation)) will be able to kick Microsoft in the balls.
And cut them off? Do you honestly think the internet would continue to function if the entire EU would be cut of from operating systems? Get real. THousands of servers (of US companies too) would seize to function and imagine the impact on the world market. The US trade deficit would explode (yes, even more) overnight.
4: Uniformity and structure? Sure. Shame Microsoft doesn't actually provide that. Uniformity and structure is being provided by other companies. By organisations whose job it is to provide uniformity and structure. Boohoo.
5: Yes, Microsoft bitchslapped the US government. Of course it did.
On April 3, 2000, a judgment was handed down in the case of United States v. Microsoft,[15] calling the company an "abusive monopoly"[6] and forcing the company to split into two separate units. Part of this ruling was later overturned by a federal appeals court, and eventually settled with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2001.
You don't honestly think the US would accept this hegemony if t had a choice, do you?
Point 1: No they don't care. Both are looking from their own point of views and neither wants to look at it from the logical middle ground. That is the problem with people today.CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
First off the EU winning the appeal doesn't make them right anymore then Microsoft winning in the US makes microsoft right. The fact remains that the EU and the US have different laws about free trade. The EU believes more in government intervention and the US believes more in controlling government interference. At least that is how our laws are written.
I didn't mean to imply microsoft invented or created any of the internet protocols. I meant could you imagine trying to send a file if it wasn't Word? Or a graphical presentation that wasn't on powerpoint? etc etc. Microsoft made it simple. They created a marketplace where I can created a spreadsheet, essay explaining that spreadsheet, and graphical examples and then I can mail it to China and they will be able to open it and use it with no changes necessary. That is huge to the marketplace.
Also as someone mentioned before Microsoft did have the better product. They made an OS that would work on any cheap PC. Back when Apple had the chance to make the marketshare more even they wouldn't see beyond pairing their OS with their computer. They made that choice.
Firefox is showing that even though IE is bundled with Windows if a superior product is released it can compete. The problem is that most of these companies filing lawsuits do not have superior products or they refuse to compete price wise.
Why should I want to pay someone for media player software when I can get it for free? Honestly how is this a good thing for the consumer? Joe Schmoe does not care if there is competition for media players because honestly that is confusing to him. He would much rather have it all bundled (good example why bundled PCs do so well and custom PCs are a niche product).
Personally I would rather have a stripped version of Windows. Because I choose not to use some of those features and instead use others. Media player though isn't one of them that I replace. I use Firefox instead of IE though for the added convenience and security.
By the way MadAce you didn't read the arcticle about the lawsuit. Microsoft paid the fine back in 2004 so it isn't about the money. It is about giving an unfair competitive advantage to other companies. It would be like forcing a restuarent to give their competitors the recipe for their secret sauce. Why should they have to? Why shouldn't they be able to sell their soda with their value meal? Forcing Microsoft to take features away from their product is like the vending machine companies forcing fast food places to stop selling drinks with their value meals. It makes no sense for the consumer and in the end the consumer is going to get hurt over this.
(and by consumer I do not mean the power users such as us. I mean the little old lady that can't see the video that her grandkids emailed her because she no longer has a video player. and now instead of getting one for free she has to pay for one and pay someone to install it because she has no idea what was wrong or how to fix it. )
This isn't what antitrust was supposed to be used for. It was supposed to be used to keep a company from being the sole provider of a product. It wasn't meant to be used as a tool to punish a marketplace leader.
War Beta Tester
MadAce your comment about questioning the US legal system was kind of funny. I was thinking the same thing about the EU legal system.
War Beta Tester
Why do you keep insisting you're a legal whiz? Is it because you're unable to refute my arguments with facts? Is that it? You sent those job applications to Microsoft and the EU yet?
BTW, I wouldn't try to use *.doc as your default company format. Use *.pdf if you plan to spread it around the world. That was why it was invented, remember?
Just like nobody is as crazy to use access when they can use oracle.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
"Advocates of a laissez-faire economic policy are quick to assert (barring private criminal conduct) that a coercive monopoly can only come about through government intervention, and defend these situations as non-coercive monopolies in which government should not intervene. They argue that competition with these monopolies is open to any firm that can offer lower prices or better products —that competition is not excluded. They claim that these monopolies keep their prices low precisely because they are not exempt from competitive forces. In other words, the possibility of competition arising indeed affects their pricing and production decisions. A coercive monopoly would be able to price-gouge consumers secure with the knowledge that no competition will develop. Some see the fact that prices are low as lending evidence to the assertion that a monopoly is a non-coercive monopoly."
There this quote from wikipedia says it better then I can. Companies like Microsoft keep their prices competitive because they know they are not a monopoly. If they were they could charge outlandish prices and people would be forced to pay it. But the fact that their is the possibility of competition drives their price down.
Also I don't know why you keep up with the personal attacks. Just because I think that the US legal system got it right and the EU one got it wrong doesn't mean I am all of a sudden smarter then the people working there. Obviously the EU judges felt differently then the US ones. The markets are different, the political systems are different, and the legal systems are differnt. So of course the outcomes could be different. That doesn't mean that you need to continue attacking me personally.
What I would love is for someone to show me why Microsoft having media player included in their windows software is a bad thing for the consumer. Anyone that wouldn't want it there sure knows how to uninstall it. So really in the end how does it make the product better for us?
Really it doesn't. As I said earlier this is about some companies that were upset that they couldn't make their money on an inferior value product. Because honestly if their product was better and priced competitively enough then they would be beating Microsoft. Google is a great example of this. Microsoft wanted to be a leader in the search engine marketplace pretty badly and yet they are getting thier butts handed to them by Google. Even though pretty much every PC starts by directing you to the MSN website. Google is still winning that battle. Also in the example mentioned earlier. The wii is considered a better product value by the mass market and is beating the Xbox360. Both of those examples prove that when faced with competition that has a better product at a better value, Microsoft can be beat.
War Beta Tester
Frankly, I'm not going to debate with you (tho I generally only classify conversations where NO arguments are being ignored as a contstructive debate) about who's right as there actually was a court ruling about it.
First you claim Microsoft can abandon the European market, I disprove it. Then you claim Microsoft has given us the ability to globally communicate, which I again disprove.... What's the point?
BTW, if I were to claim Michael Jackson is a dragon then posting a clear definition of a dragon wouldn't prove that he is one.
So if you're at all interested in anything but your own subjective opinion I invite you to read the whole ruling. Have fun. Strange it's in pdf, isn't it?
Anyways, the part you'll be most interested in starts at page 210.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
You didn't disprove anything. Microsoft could abandon the EU market just like they could abandon the US market. Just like they could decide that they were going to design Christmas trees. You can not deny the fact that it would hurt the Marketplace more then it would hurt a company with 29 billion dollars in cash reserves. Not even counting the rest of their assets. Microsoft could choose to close down shop and would still be considered a resounding success.
I said that Microsoft made it easier to communicate around the world do to having universal programs. That does make it easier. It would be a lot harder to talk to work together if we were all on seperate systems.
The ruling doesn't matter to me because while your EU ruling does affect how they do business in the EU, it has no affect on how they do business here in the US. So what will end up happening is the EU will end up with an inferior product to the US. Since Microsoft will have to strip their product to provide it to the EU companies. The ruling there doesn't supercede the ruling that the US courts already made.
So really all that matters is which court ruling you want to believe and which country you are in. The EU ruling has nothing to do with me what so ever and has no affect on me personally.
War Beta Tester
Are you being serious?
Honestly do you have a clue how companies work?
I respect your opinion, but this is going beyond an opinion.
Do you really think that if MS will quit the European market MS will survive?
The fact that Microsoft has millions of reserve cash doesn't make a shit of a difference.
Business and today economy don't work that way, I am afraid.
We are living in the age of the global economy and MS CANNOT afford to pull out from any worldwide market, whether this is the EU, the US or Asia.
A company may have billions of dollars of debts and still being a healthy company, while at the same time another company could have billions of cash flow but being worth peanuts.
What make a company healthy is not the cash reserve (although it helps) but:
1) The capacity of produce profit for the investors
2) The amount of money each share is worth on the stock market.
Now if MS gets out of the EU market, that will mean 2 things:
1) That the profit for the shareholders will be cut considerably, making MS a bad company to invest to.
2) The shares value will plunge exposing the company to a possible hostile takeover from other companies, and who knows, it might happen that MS could be bought by an EU company, how amusing would that be?
On top of this, as Madace mentioned already, a pull out of MS from the EU market will free a huge market gap which can be filled EASILY by any other company.
Designing an OS isn't complicated, but convincing software houses and game publishers to support it, that is the biggest problem.
The issue about MS monopoly at the moment is the challenge to convince consumers to change to another OS, it would be much more easy to force people to do so due to the sudden unavailability of MS on the EU market.
Trust me, MS will do a big favour to EU software companies if it decide to do so..
If 450 millions European will adopt the new OS, all the other software companies and game pubblishers will be forced to produce games and softare for the new OS (at the moment this doesn't happen due to the dominance of MS), the same way it happens when they produce games for the different games consoles.
That could spell the end of MS as a dominating OS and the new European OS could even gain share markets in Asia and America too.
It is a bit of an hypothetical scenario, but obviously MS will never do anything so silly to pull out a lucrative market like the EU, no matter how many fines they will get.
Only someone with zero economic knowledge could come up with such a silly theory, not certainly MS bosses.
MS is just a frikking company like any other, and companies in EU do as they told, unlike what happens in US where you think that big corporations are untoucheable (although that's your choice and we respect that).
PS: This is not about deciding who is right or wrong like you put it, this is about the right for each country to decide which rules to adopt for the companies who wants to make business in their respective market.
MS is a monopoly and that's a fact, look at definition of monopoly on the vocabulary, doesn't take a genious to understand that.
The fact that this monopoly is well deserved because MS was the first to think about a software that could make computer more user friendly, it is something I can agree with you.
But still a monopoly is, and each country has the right to deal with it the way they want to.
"If a monopoly is not protected from competition by law, then it is subject to competitive forces. However, with enough market share, a company or group can partially plan and control the market through strategic product updates or lower prices - potential competition can be thwarted, while demand for the dominant company's output can be preferentially developed. Hence, within free economies, planned sub-economies can arise."
And this is the case for MS whether you like it or not, and that's what the EU is trying to fight.
First off Microsoft is not a monopoly. Consumers can choose to purchase an Apple computer with Apple's OS or they can choose to use Linux. That makes it not a monopoly. Just because they have the best product and so are chosen by the most consumers does not make them a monopoly. Microsoft doesn't own the computers and they aren't forcing them to have windows software.Are you being serious?
Honestly do you have a clue how companies work?
I respect your opinion, but this is going beyond an opinion.
Do you really think that if MS will quit the European market MS will survive?
The fact that Microsoft has millions of reserve cash doesn't make a shit of a difference.
Business and today economy don't work that way, I am afraid.
We are living in the age of the global economy and MS CANNOT afford to pull out from any worldwide market, whether this is the EU, the US or Asia.
A company may have billions of dollars of debts and still being a healthy company, while at the same time another company could have billions of cash flow but being worth peanuts.
What make a company healthy is not the cash reserve (although it helps) but:
1) The capacity of produce profit for the investors
2) The amount of money each share is worth on the stock market.
Now if MS gets out of the EU market, that will mean 2 things:
1) That the profit for the shareholders will be cut considerably, making MS a bad company to invest to.
2) The shares value will plunge exposing the company to a possible hostile takeover from other companies, and who knows, it might happen that MS could be bought by an EU company, how amusing would that be?
On top of this, as Madace mentioned already, a pull out of MS from the EU market will free a huge market gap which can be filled EASILY by any other company.
Designing an OS isn't complicated, but convincing software houses and game publishers to support it, that is the biggest problem.
The issue about MS monopoly at the moment is the challenge to convince consumers to change to another OS, it would be much more easy to force people to do so due to the sudden unavailability of MS on the EU market.
Trust me, MS will do a big favour to EU software companies if it decide to do so..
If 450 millions European will adopt the new OS, all the other software companies and game pubblishers will be forced to produce games and softare for the new OS (at the moment this doesn't happen due to the dominance of MS), the same way it happens when they produce games for the different games consoles.
That could spell the end of MS as a dominating OS and the new European OS could even gain share markets in Asia and America too.
It is a bit of an hypothetical scenario, but obviously MS will never do anything so silly to pull out a lucrative market like the EU, no matter how many fines they will get.
Only someone with zero economic knowledge could come up with such a silly theory, not certainly MS bosses.
MS is just a frikking company like any other, and companies in EU do as they told, unlike what happens in US where you think that big corporations are untoucheable (although that's your choice and we respect that).
PS: This is not about deciding who is right or wrong like you put it, this is about the right for each country to decide which rules to adopt for the companies who wants to make business in their respective market.
MS is a monopoly and that's a fact, look at definition of monopoly on the vocabulary, doesn't take a genious to understand that.
The fact that this monopoly is well deserved because MS was the first to think about a software that could make computer more user friendly, it is something I can agree with you.
But still a monopoly is, and each country has the right to deal with it the way they want to.
"If a monopoly is not protected from competition by law, then it is subject to competitive forces. However, with enough market share, a company or group can partially plan and control the market through strategic product updates or lower prices - potential competition can be thwarted, while demand for the dominant company's output can be preferentially developed. Hence, within free economies, planned sub-economies can arise."
And this is the case for MS whether you like it or not, and that's what the EU is trying to fight.
Secondly I never said Microsoft would survive. I said they would still be considered a successful company. Meaning past tense. As I said they could choose to launch a christmas tree company and with 29 billion dollars in cash alone they would be fine. They would no longer be making 1 billion dollars per month though. But I am sure they could subsidize themselves for years. That was my point. Not any point about whether they could still be the dominating force in the marketplace while losing a third of their customers. Potentially they could still be a viable software company and still be profitable. Just not 1 billion per month in cash profitable.
Not many companies make the kind of money that Microsoft does. They put what 2 billion dollars in losses into their console game market to buy their way in. And it seems to have been a pretty decent gamble.
To find a company with similar power in their respective marketplaces would be hard to do. Maybe ExxonMobile? Maybe JPMorgan Case or Citigroup? But really it would be hard.
That was the point I was trying to make. That Microsoft could cease to exist today and would still go down in history as one of (if not THE) most successful companies ever.
War Beta Tester
See what ste2000 said. It's perfect.
The simple notion that a company with 29 billion dollars in reserve (woooooooow) and representing 79 000 employees could play chicken with a trade bloc representing 30.3% of the worlds GDP (13.6 trillion $, that's 13 600 billion $) and representing 494 million people and could actually win is absurd.
The world simply doesn't work like that.
I've pointed out that Microsoft doesn't make anything "easier" by monopolizing. That's not their goal. They're not developing things to make it easier, they're developing to sell. Hence why they parasite on other companies.
And why do you think professional companies generally choose to work with Oracle/openoffice/... ? Because although popular MS doesn't provide the best products overall. Sure, I use their OS. But only because other companies don't develop for Linux, which I would much rather use, thank you very much.
Why? Because I'm not an unknowing consumer. That's why.
But this isn't the discussion.
Do you honestly think the EU rulings don't affect your user experience? Tssss.
Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel:
"There may be times in the future when we'll add new features into Windows and need to address them in some different way because of today's decision."
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer:
"we've already adopted voluntary standards for how we integrate new features into our products in order to preserve competitive opportunities,"
And I've already read some interesting opinions on the ruling.
Here:
To technology analyst Rob Enderle, the impact of the decision is the loss of U.S. control over regulating multinationals. The EC "is taking center stage in large commercial activities in the world market. In my experience, you don't see that," he said. In contrast to the U.S., the EC "is showing itself to be a much more avid believer in being a central power broker for commerce."
Because of the U.S. government's diplomatic work to maintain a coalition with European powers since the start of the Iraq War, the administration did not challenge the EC's authority over Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior, Enderle says.
If not for the political realities earlier in the decade, "the U.S. would have made a pretty good stink about this," Enderle says. "Now, other companies wanting to take on a dominant player will take their cases to Europe for litigation."
This poses the danger that "U.S. law becomes redundant and powerless, because this is a world-market action," Enderle says. "Once the [EC] has established itself as the world body that's willing to do this," the U.S. will have difficulty retaking regulatory control over multinationals.
Personally I think this will upset the balance in the short term, but will prove to be beneficial in the long term. But I would also like to see more of a corelation between the EU and the US policy in the matter.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
As I am a tad ignorant of EU trade policy and law, I have a question. Can Microsoft challenge this on a country by country basis, or are all member states bound by this ruling so long as they remain members of the EU? Basically, are there loopholes for Microsoft to exploit?
I was kind of amused reading through the stories, thinking to myself 'Gee...this is exactly what we charged them with in the States.' Guess it worked out a little differently.
Once again you are both missing my point.
I didn't say that Microsoft could still be as successful or as dominant or as profitable if they cut out the EU market. I said that they would be better off in the short term then the EU would be. Yes other companies would fill the void, but no one is in a place right now to take full advantage of it. No one would all of a sudden be able to provide the same level of service that Microsoft does to their consumers. Sure other companies would fill in but then it would take time for all the other software to adapt to multiple different Operating Systems. Plus as you said yourself MadAce it would wreck havoc on the global economy.
My point wasn't about doing the best thing or the right thing. My point was that Billy boy could take his toys home and play the part of the spoiled three year old and not share anymore. And for quite a while it would hurt them more then it would hurt Billy Boy. He has already said that he is giving away his money to Charity. So he obviously has a lot less interest in maintaining the dominating position that Microsoft currently has, compared to say 10 years ago when he was hungry and still building up more power.
That was my point about the pulling out of EU comment.
Sure the ruling in the long term may have some effects on me, or it might get overturned by the Supreme Court of the EU. Or the next President might kick the EU in the figurative balls and say leave Microsoft alone. We don't know. The only thing we do know is that the Current President doesn't have the Political Capital to tell the EU to blow their nose, much less dictate this case. But that could very quickly change with the new President.
War Beta Tester
5.5 millions servers shutting down (and subsequently the internet, depsite the many millions more running on Linux) would make Microsofts share vaporate overnight. That's I'll I'm going to say about it. You can continue pretending this isn't true.
Billy Boy isn't the ceo of Microsoft anymore.
And the US whining because the of the EU's decision... Pffft. Was to be expected. Yet another small battle in the economical worldwar between the US and the EU and China and India and Brazil and South-Africa...
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!