MS vs. EU - ...Yes, another one of those articles!
Posted on October 11, 2006 under Random Rants.
I've been following the entire Microsoft/EU showdown for the last couple of months and got so sick and tired about all what has been written about it, that I decided to write something myself about it.
I'm not really a fan of either of them but and i cannot help noticing that about all the articles attempt to portray either of the two as the bad guy. Or better said: why do you all people out there writing about it have to tell the story in terms of good and evil? Let me be the first breaking y'all the news, neither are good nor evil. So stop putting the problem that way and start thinking how to deal with it effectively!
FACT 1. Microsoft's Windows Opsys is the defacto monopoly on the non-server, non-specialty computing market , partly because of the fact that it tried really hard to become a monopoly, and that's why it's evil. But also significantly because it spend billions of dollars (at this point, i suspect) to develop a GUI that is insanely user friendly, easy to use, cohesive, and polished to the most minute detail. Consecvently, all users, from experts down to the person first touching a computer feel confident and confortable in using it.
FACT 2. The European Union is highly bureaucratic, believes in regulating pretty much everything (micromanagement comes to mind) including and especially the IT sector at the cost of the taxpayers and that's why it's evil. But it also largely and clumsily manages to protect it's citizens from evil, and a monopoly is always a bad. thing.
FACT 3. While Windows is a monopoly, there is not really any viable alternative, user-experience wise there is the Mac+MacOSX, but although i like their products a lot and i hate to say it... sorry guys... never gonna get quite there. I'm not willing to pay the premium for inferior hardware (as compared to PC at the same price) to be hardware and software dependent to you guys. And then there's Linux, wonderful operating system if we're talking about it's core. GUI not so much... and for those who wanna argue this last point, one fact: take a look at the plethora of, desktops, themes and what not that poorly attempt to mimic the windows experience.
FACT 4. MS needs the EU since the EU space is one of the top consumer of its products, and the EU needs MS because of its products. Does this mean MS has a license to be anticompetitve? No! Does this mean the EU should not attempt to enforce anticompetition practice? No!
So where are we now? MS is on the eve of launching Vista, an OpSys that is supposed to bring about radical changes in terms of security, disregarding MS's trackrecord in the field, i really want to believe them. The EU supposedly tipped off by Symantec says wait a minute you could be using your position in an anticompetitve manner and we need to look into it before you actually do any damage.
And here comes the problem, the entire security market where Symantec and others thrive is pretty much based on and created by the security issues in the Windows OpSys. So in all fairness MS has the right to fix it's OpSys, and incidentally to kill that market even if it seems anticmpetitive. But MS isn't doing that... it's shipping Windows with all kinds of security applications made in Redmond. Setting aside the the amuzing art of the situation where the guys that create the problems try to sell you the products to fix them, they have every right to do so.
But wait a minute, if you're selling a monopoly product and attach some other products to it, it may be anticompetitve if the user is not sufficiently aware of alternatives or the user is not given a real choice. Given that the most users out there will use the preinstalled security software from MS completely oblivious of other alternatives is a problem, because they are preinstalled and to use competitors' software users need to take additional actions. And that is what the EU is trying to establish.
Now the EU isn't exactly the most efficient body either so the danger is that if it has it's way MS will have to strip down the security apps it ships with Windows in the EU coutries consecvently those computers will be less secure, because users have to take additional measures to protect themselves, which they won't anyway, so that's not good either...
Quite franky i'd rather have MS continue shipping it's security products with potential blatant disregard for anticompetitive practices. AND i'd rather have the EU keep fining them BUT use all that money to finance the development of a viable alternative, so we can all benefit!
I'm not really a fan of either of them but and i cannot help noticing that about all the articles attempt to portray either of the two as the bad guy. Or better said: why do you all people out there writing about it have to tell the story in terms of good and evil? Let me be the first breaking y'all the news, neither are good nor evil. So stop putting the problem that way and start thinking how to deal with it effectively!
FACT 1. Microsoft's Windows Opsys is the defacto monopoly on the non-server, non-specialty computing market , partly because of the fact that it tried really hard to become a monopoly, and that's why it's evil. But also significantly because it spend billions of dollars (at this point, i suspect) to develop a GUI that is insanely user friendly, easy to use, cohesive, and polished to the most minute detail. Consecvently, all users, from experts down to the person first touching a computer feel confident and confortable in using it.
FACT 2. The European Union is highly bureaucratic, believes in regulating pretty much everything (micromanagement comes to mind) including and especially the IT sector at the cost of the taxpayers and that's why it's evil. But it also largely and clumsily manages to protect it's citizens from evil, and a monopoly is always a bad. thing.
FACT 3. While Windows is a monopoly, there is not really any viable alternative, user-experience wise there is the Mac+MacOSX, but although i like their products a lot and i hate to say it... sorry guys... never gonna get quite there. I'm not willing to pay the premium for inferior hardware (as compared to PC at the same price) to be hardware and software dependent to you guys. And then there's Linux, wonderful operating system if we're talking about it's core. GUI not so much... and for those who wanna argue this last point, one fact: take a look at the plethora of, desktops, themes and what not that poorly attempt to mimic the windows experience.
FACT 4. MS needs the EU since the EU space is one of the top consumer of its products, and the EU needs MS because of its products. Does this mean MS has a license to be anticompetitve? No! Does this mean the EU should not attempt to enforce anticompetition practice? No!
So where are we now? MS is on the eve of launching Vista, an OpSys that is supposed to bring about radical changes in terms of security, disregarding MS's trackrecord in the field, i really want to believe them. The EU supposedly tipped off by Symantec says wait a minute you could be using your position in an anticompetitve manner and we need to look into it before you actually do any damage.
And here comes the problem, the entire security market where Symantec and others thrive is pretty much based on and created by the security issues in the Windows OpSys. So in all fairness MS has the right to fix it's OpSys, and incidentally to kill that market even if it seems anticmpetitive. But MS isn't doing that... it's shipping Windows with all kinds of security applications made in Redmond. Setting aside the the amuzing art of the situation where the guys that create the problems try to sell you the products to fix them, they have every right to do so.
But wait a minute, if you're selling a monopoly product and attach some other products to it, it may be anticompetitve if the user is not sufficiently aware of alternatives or the user is not given a real choice. Given that the most users out there will use the preinstalled security software from MS completely oblivious of other alternatives is a problem, because they are preinstalled and to use competitors' software users need to take additional actions. And that is what the EU is trying to establish.
Now the EU isn't exactly the most efficient body either so the danger is that if it has it's way MS will have to strip down the security apps it ships with Windows in the EU coutries consecvently those computers will be less secure, because users have to take additional measures to protect themselves, which they won't anyway, so that's not good either...
Quite franky i'd rather have MS continue shipping it's security products with potential blatant disregard for anticompetitive practices. AND i'd rather have the EU keep fining them BUT use all that money to finance the development of a viable alternative, so we can all benefit!