Microsoft Softens Up On Competition 150
shaneFalco writes "The BBC is reporting that Microsoft, prompted in part by their recently legal woes in the European Union will allow vendors to set non-Microsoft applications as the default on Windows computers. This initiative is part of a dozen 'tenets to promote competition' that the company is adopting in the face of stiff criticism of business tactics in Europe. Other tents include not retaliating against businesses that promote non-MS software, and a relaxing of restrictions on licensing Windows-related patents." From the article: "The principles might mean that some manufacturers will promote search engines other than Microsoft's own, Mr Smith said - an apparent reference to Google, which has looked to be on a collision course with Microsoft over search engines. 'There are certain steps we can't take that would have been permitted a decade ago,' the executive added." We touched on this announcement yesterday, but details on the '12 tenets' were less clear at that point.
How nice (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How nice (Score:2)
The nice dog... (Score:2)
Re:The nice dog... (Score:2)
Why not just take it out back behind the shed? Do what needs to be done.
Re:How nice (Score:1)
It's just a question of magnitude (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh, maybe their respective 95%/5% market shares have something to do with that decision?
You can already do this! (Score:2, Insightful)
Just install the apps and select the preferences you want...
So this is either just pure marketing, or someone at MS half-arsed an app to automate default file and protocol associations.
Re:You can already do this! (Score:5, Informative)
Having OEMs ship with non-MS defaults is big, because the vast majority of users will pretty much stick with default settings in most cases.
Re:You can already do this! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You can already do this! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You can already do this! (Score:3, Funny)
and pray it works
Re:You can already do this! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You can already do this! (Score:2)
I'm going with number three. This is about the OEM deciding what is default on your system instead of MS. I don't see what the big deal is about since neither option is any good.
Re:You can already do this! (Score:5, Insightful)
( ) Microsoft's meeting antitrust settlement requirements by not only providing mechanisms to change the defaults, but actually implementing the GUI to make it possible for non-geeks to do so
( ) Political spin/marketing bragging about how they're good guys when in reality they were forced to do this
( ) Unlike Google, known for making efforts to "do no evil" Microsoft is known primarily for doing evil and then not apologising afterward. Making their meeting DoJ requirements look like new value-added features is great marketing. "Hey we let you change small aspects of your desktop, new in Vista. Upgrade your PC today!"
( ) Microsoft's wanting to avoid further extensions of antitrust settlements
( ) Ballmer didn't feel like throwing any chairs yesterday (I kid, I kid)
Previously if you wanted to change some of these settings it was digging through the registry (a frightning prospect for Mr. Old School businessman who can barely master Hotmail or for Joe Sixpack) or knowing about and downloading xteq's xsetup (or for some settings, TweakUI from Microsoft Powertoys)
Re:You can already do this! (Score:2)
Er... or use the "Set Program Access and Defaults" wizard, which has been on the start menu since Windows 2000 and Windows 98 SE came out.
Re:You can already do this! (Score:2)
Re:You can already do this! (Score:3, Informative)
It was added to Windows XP in SP1, and in Windows 2000 SP3. And it certainly does not allow one to set a default search engine.
As for setting a search engine, TweakUI for Win9x allowed you to set a non-MSN search engine for Internet Explorer, going back to IE5, if I recall corectly. I have no idea if TweakUI for Windows XP lets you do this, but considering IE7 lets you select a search engine in the exact same way Firefox does, I'd say they'v
Re:You can already do this! (Score:2)
It was added to Windows XP in SP1, and in Windows 2000 SP3.
Seconded. No such functionality existed in Win98. I don't know if it was added with an update later, but I doubt it.
Re:You can already do this! (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, Gateway wanted realplayer (god, no!) as the default. However, to do so, they would lose some/all of their discount. It doesn't hurt gateway to not bundle it, and it's good for them.
I think that's the reason why the anti-trust case came up. As far as I know, they were stifling competition by "forcing" (for lack of a better term - incentivizing?) them to bundle/m
Re:You can already do this! (Score:2)
Your Getting A Dell (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Your Getting A Dell (Score:1)
Now with 50% more junk preinstalled with every PC.
Typically laptop users suffer more than desktop, from bloat. Oddly, my laptop drive crapped out and I'm borrowing a desktop of approximately the same CPU clockage but the delay in loading during boot up is considerably longer on the desktop. Both HP-Compaq. Odd that.
(The reason being laptops usually use lower power north-south bridge and thus run a bit slower clock.
Re:Your Getting A Dell (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Your Getting A Dell (Score:2)
Plus that's what the 2GB of memory is for.
Tom
Re:Your Getting A Dell (Score:2)
Re:Your Getting A Dell (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you left out the word "typically" as my laptop (HPQ nw9440) has a 7200 rpm hard disk drive. The
Re:Your Getting A Dell (Score:2)
Re:Your Getting A Dell (Score:2)
You misspelled "You're going to Hell".
Re:Your Getting A Dell (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Your Getting A Dell (Score:2, Funny)
Okay, old joke, but I thought it was fitting.
We promise.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Hmm.. does a slightly higher pricing structure count as 'retaliation', or is that just good business sense? I guess it's a matter of semantics.
Re:We promise.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yes (Score:2)
Re:Yes (Score:2)
What? You don't trust them to do the right thing? What could ever go wrong with that plan?
Re:Yes (Score:2)
"Microsoft will not retaliate against any computer manufacturer that supports non-Microsoft software. To provide transparency on this point, Microsoft will post a standard volume-based price list to a Web site that is accessible to computer manufacturers, as it has under the U.S. antitrust ruling."
I mean, should that not be taken for granted? Further there are other actions possible than just price driven approaches. E.g. you do not supply interoperability infor
Any requirement... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there any requirement that we won't see a replay of the Opera-Bork-Bork-Bork fiasco in Microsoft ensuring competitor's components are noticeably more clunky than their own?
i still don't like it, keep the playing field a bit tilted
Wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wtf? (Score:1)
BTW, "default" and "make people use" are two different things, at least for those not afraid of their computers. For them, the two may well be equivalent.
It may mean the beginning of the end of their dominance though I'm sure that has been predicted before.
Re:Wtf? (Score:1)
If the default is IE, they'll use IE. If the default is Opera, they'll use Opera. As long as it works there isn't any reason for them to change anything.
By setting their products as the default MS is able to increase/maintain its share due to the reticence and/or lack of desire by the user base to change.
And the problem is? (Score:1)
Re:And the problem is? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And the problem is? (Score:3, Interesting)
What you've got there is called a "strawman" rebuttal: a reply to a different point than the one at hand.
The problem isn't with them bundling. Never was. The problem is what they'll do to vendors who want to build different bundles, what they'll do to customers that want different software. Microsoft doesn't like to talk about those parts. They want to talk about everything but those parts. They got convicted of a felony for those parts. They act all hurt when people remember and act accordingly. All
Re:And the problem is? (Score:3, Informative)
Fascinating. Do you really believe that MS is giving IE away. Do you thing that MS's IE developers don't get paid??! Really. It's fairly obvious that the cost of IE is rolled into the cost of Windows. MS is no more giving IE away than GM is giving away free seats with every car they sell.
Which reminds me of why MS started "giving away IE. As was determine
Re:Wtf? (Score:2)
That would be the contractual agreement between OEMs and Microsoft.
Microsoft have every right to insist OEMs ship *Microsoft's product* just the way *Microsoft* wants them to. Likewise, OEMs have every right to refuse and thus lose any incidental benefits agreeing to the contract might have provided like, say, lower prices.
You think the biggest $CAR_MANUFACTURER deal in $MAJOR_CITY is allowed to present the cars in whateve
Re:Wtf? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not if they leverage their monopoly position to do so. This got them into trouble in the 90s when they would threaten to revoke Windows licenses, a sure-fire OEM killer since Windows is a monopoly.
Re:Wtf? (Score:2)
Re:Wtf? (Score:2)
The
Re:Wtf? (Score:2)
The only reason anyone can tell them that they can't do that is because they lost the anti-trust case. If they were just another OS vendor with a roughl
Great. (Score:5, Insightful)
How precisely do they propose to differentiate between "retaliation against a computer maker" and "business decisions" due to any other little thing the maker may do that they decide they don't like? Would it be possible to argue that regardless of the actions of the maker, Microsoft could never stop selling to them or change pricing ever again without risking constant litigation? Seems like a disaster waiting to happen either way once a precedent is set(either against or for Microsoft).
Re:Great. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft needs to stop playing games and just set different prices for different numbers of units sold and be done with it. The more complex they make their OEM pricing models, and the more factors they base pricing on, the more likely they are to be hit with lawsuits based on unfair pricing.
Re:Great. (Score:1)
Re:Great. (Score:1)
Publish volume-based pricing (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Publish volume-based pricing (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft got cought doing exactly this so
Re:Publish volume-based pricing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Publish volume-based pricing (Score:3, Funny)
To show how good we know are; we swear we'll keep doing what we're forced to by law! ;-)
-a.d.-
Re:Publish volume-based pricing (Score:2)
Also, there should be no other side agreements like 'Windows license with every machine we sell'. And co-advertising agreements (or other stealth discounts) based on restricting what the OEM is allo
Re:Great. (Score:2)
they will post volume liscensing. So if you get charged more for 1000 pieces then you competitor, you can bring anti-trust lawsuits to the table.
Re:Great. (Score:2)
the effective end result is exactly the same, but they can quite honestly and truthfully claim that they haven't put the price up for that manufacturer.
Nihilists! (Score:1)
Re:Nihilists! (Score:2)
No, I'd say it's more of a pathos.
softening? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hail Microsoft's perceived "softening" as a positive step albeit driven largely by legal fiat. However, one need only read this article on Microsoft and their stance against Google [com.com] to realize and recognize Microsoft retains its hubris and aggressive stance.
Consider from the above article:
The hubris is Microsoft's assumption anyone getting business is taking food off of their plate, or something they consider rightfully theirs, as opposed to customers who make choices in a free marketplace. Fortunately the marketplace is tipped somewhat more towards a level playing field (not all the way, but better than before).
Hey! (Score:1)
The hubris is Microsoft's assumption anyone getting business is taking food off of their plate, or something they consider rightfully theirs...
You bastard! Your post denied Microsoft from making a compatible post which is their right!
From now on all posts to /. regarding Microsoft will come from Microsoft, however in the interest of fair competition, you may forward your post to Microsoft for inclusion in their post to ensure compatibility.
Re:Hey! (Score:2)
Re:softening? (Score:2)
Of course not and neither can MS. As long as MS management stays the same they will not change their behavior. This is just some pablum put out there to appease the press and the gullable. Actions speak louder then words. Let's see how they behave in the next three months and then decide.
Re:softening? (Score:2)
Means nothing (Score:4, Interesting)
It doesn't really matter what browser they use, if the homepage is msn.com, they still get their unique visitor and ads displayed numbers bumped.
OTOH,
Re:Means nothing (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I think you misspelled any.
Or do you really think that MS is the only one who makes media players and such ask "do you want to change the default options to me"? ESPECIALLY media players. It's rare to find one that doesn't, at least in the Windows world.
Re:Means nothing (Score:2)
Re:Means nothing (Score:2)
I suppose it's possible that they do it with WM Player, because I use that by default for a lot of stuff, but that's about the only thing that I have that's set at default. Certainly no IE security update has returned IE to being default (this is over the life of this computer, which is just about 4 years now).
Re:Means nothing (Score:2)
Re:Means nothing (Score:2)
Re:Means nothing (Score:2)
A touch arrogant; not everyone who wants to buy music online has an iPod, and how hard would it be to make it configurable?
Re:Means nothing (Score:2)
What are they then? (Score:3, Informative)
Found 'em on eweek (Score:5, Informative)
"We will ensure that Microsoft will design Windows in ways that make it easy for people to add non-Microsoft features," Smith said.
No. 2 is easy access: Computer manufacturers are free to add icons, shortcuts and the like to the Windows Start menu and other places used to access software programs so that customers can easily find them, Microsoft said.
No. 3 is defaults. Microsoft will design Windows so as to let computer manufacturers and users set non-Microsoft programs to operate by default in certain categories, such as Web browsing and media playback, Microsoft said; computer manufacturers can set these defaults as they please when building new PCs.
No. 4 is exclusive promotion of non-Microsoft programs, Smith said.
"This is an important new issue in regard to things like media and Internet search, as we are broadening to adopt this for Internet search as well," he said, indicating that Microsoft's fierce competition with Google aside, the company is dedicated to this principle.
Guru Jakob Nielsen offers advice on designing applications for usability. Click here to watch the video.
No. 5 is business terms: Microsoft will not retaliate against any computer manufacturer that supports non-Microsoft software, Smith said.
To provide transparency on this point, Microsoft will post a standard volume-based price list to a Web site that is accessible to computer manufacturers, as it has under the U.S. antitrust ruling, he said.
Principle No. 6 deals with APIs. Microsoft provides the developer community with a broad range of innovative operating system services, via documented APIs (application programming interfaces), for use in developing state-of-the-art applications.
And the U.S. antitrust ruling requires that Microsoft disclose all of the interfaces internal to Windows called by "middleware" within the operating system, Smith said.
Principle No. 7 involves Internet services, where Microsoft is contributing to innovation in the area of Internet services with services that the company calls Windows Live, Smith said.
"Microsoft will design Windows Live as a product that is separate from Windows. Customers will be free to choose Windows with or without Windows Live," the company said.
No. 8 is Open Internet access, where Microsoft will design and license Windows so that it does not block access to any lawful Web site or impose any fee for reaching any non-Microsoft Web site or using any non-Microsoft Web service, Smith said.
Principle No. 9 is "no exclusivity," Smith said.
The U.S. antitrust ruling provides that Microsoft may not enter into contracts that require any third party to promote Windows or any "middleware" in Windows on an exclusive basis and Microsoft has pledged to continue this, Smith said.
Next Page: Microsoft's pledges.
Principles 10 through 12 deal with interoperability for users and say that Microsoft will make its communications protocols available for commercial release, the company will generally license patents on its operating system inventions, and the company is committed to supporting industry standards.
Re:What are they then? (Score:2)
Official MS URL to the 12 Tenets (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, here's the official link:
Windows Principles: Twelve Tenets to Promote Competition [microsoft.com]
(Note that according to the text, the tenets are in keeping with and following the spirit of the MS/USDOJ settlement, rather than having to do with EU fines (though the latter likely played a role).)
Re:Official MS URL to the 12 Tenets (Score:2)
"Microsoft will generally license patents on its operating system inventions (other than those that differentiate the appearance of Microsoft's products) on fair and reasonable terms so long as licensees respect Microsoft's intellectual property rights."
I'm sure the terms and the definition of respecting MS's IP rights will be such as to preclude their use in GPL software.
Re:Official MS URL to the 12 Tenets (Score:2)
"Microsoft will make available, on commercially reasonable terms, all of the communications protocols that it has built into Windows and that are used to facilitate communication with server versions of Windows."
"Commercially reasonable terms" will, no doubt, exclude GPL software.
Reality check (Score:2)
1. Installation of any software. Computer manufacturers and customers are free to add any software to PCs that run Windows. More broadly, every computer manufacturer and customer is free to install and promote any operating system, any application, and any Web service on PCs that run Windows. Ultimately, end users are free to choose which software they prefer to use.
This means that any vendor can sell a computer that dual boots Windows and Linux, right?
Re:Official MS URL to the 12 Tenets (Score:2)
I recommend to report abuses to your responsible antitrust agency in the future. The reason is that this is an instrument which educates them. Small steps.
Find your national competition authority here
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/other_sites/ [europa.eu]
Microsoft ... will allow ... on Windows computers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not really... (Score:2)
So how do you call it when key players agree to exclude competitors and limit consumer choice?
It wouldn't give buyers no other option but to purchase "general-purpose computer"(!) hardware named after and made for one specific operating system only, as in "Windows computer". The mere use
What About Google? (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting (Score:2)
I can't speak for MS, but in other companies this happens after the board becins quitely suggesting that the people on top find mre to do with there time. Nothing big as to not upset stock prices, just someone to point out how flat growth has been.
Please mod +1 pure speculation.
technical information... (Score:2)
Giving outside software developers the same access to technical information that Windows developers have, so "competitors will know that they can plug into Windows to get services in the same way that built-in Windows features do"
I wonder just WHAT technical information microsoft is talking about?
strange, should not be done before? (Score:2)
That because Microsoft didn't actually did the promises, lead to a trial loose by the company?
That lead to another agreement with the new administration (bush) to soft the terms of the trial and Microsoft compromissed to allowing third-part software on windows, and not using restrictions on contracts again?
And only now they start dloing it?
Strange... I tought they should
Protocols: not Open Source-friendly (Score:2)
"10. Communications protocols. Microsoft will make available, on commercially reasonable terms, all of the communications protocols that it has built into Windows and that are used to facilitate communication with server versions of Windows"
That closes out Open Source, no?
Dual boot out of the box? (Score:2, Funny)
What?
Re:Dual boot out of the box? (Score:2, Interesting)
Offers nothing (Score:2, Insightful)
- the pretty obvious (eg we "allow" other firms icons !)
- what they have been *forced* to do under US and EU antitrust rulings (eg interoperability and equal deals to OEMs).
Or am I missing something ?
Impact (Score:3, Interesting)
The question I have is, how many of these OEM's are actually going to bother changing all the possible options?
Okay, so someone like Dell might because they can make some extra money but if the large majority of the others simply don't bother then this change of policy by Microsoft won't equate to much for the average purchaser.
You know what would be fascinating....... (Score:2)
Responsibility would be on the OS manufacturers to ship easy-to-use, no trouble, no options install disks for usage on the first install. These would have a standardized, regulated procedure that would be open to any OS company.
Now for Apple? (Score:2)
Re:Not healthy... (Score:2)
Re:Not healthy... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not healthy... (Score:2)
But, when you find yourself in the very comfortable position of a monopoly, you have to play by other rules. These rules help protect other companies that would be completely unable to thrive in a saturated ecosystem.
And, in this case, we are talking about a monopolist that has not restrained itself from leveraging one monopoly to extend it to other business areas, sucking competitors dry after promising them business i
Re:Not healthy... (Score:2)
So, you're playing a game of football. It's OK to grab the other guy by
the helmet and throw him to the ground? Break his neck?
Shouldnt be punished for winning, even then? Is the
competition "whiny crybabies" for insisting that the rules
and regulations of business be followed?