28 January 2007
EC Again Looking at Microsoft Anti-Competitive Practices
Microsoft is yet again in trouble with the European Commission. This time IBM, Oracle, Red Hat, Nokia, Sun Microsystems, Adobe, Corel, RealNetworks, Linspire and Opera are the ones making the complaint that Vista will continue practices that have been considered illegal in the EU for almost 3 years.
The chairman of the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS) agrees that Microsoft has ignored the principles set in the EC's decision from March 2004. The ECIS states that Vista is a step to dominate the Internet and feels that the XAML markup language was "positioned to replace HTML". XAML is completely dependent on Windows and discriminates against other systems like Linux. OOXML as well works only in Microsoft Office and was not made to 'play' well with other office suites.
The ECIS believes that the result of Microsoft's actions will prevent any real choice for consumers.
On the bright side, earlier issues raised by Symantec and other anti-virus and security software creators have been solved and Symantec and a few other companies have been able to release updates in time for the release of Vista.
Like most companies, Microsoft tries to keep a strong market position, the problem comes that unlike other companies who try to release products that actually are innovative and compete with competitors, Microsoft has a strategy of releasing a not so unique Windows. If Windows were considered stable and secure that may be enough to easily hold their market position ignoring the overpriced issue with Vista. Most people use some version of Windows and it provides them with most of what they want. What it usually fails to provide is security and stability - try leaving a standard Windows system up for 2 months of standard use. Vista adds another feature that people will not like, limitations. With the security features created for Vista, users are more restricted and put in a box that allows them to use their computer how Microsoft thinks they want to use it. There is no thinking outside of the box in Vista. This is not something that will help Microsoft keep users. We are already seeing in the news people and companies saying that Vista will not work for them and they are forced to choose from Linux and Mac.
The chairman of the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS) agrees that Microsoft has ignored the principles set in the EC's decision from March 2004. The ECIS states that Vista is a step to dominate the Internet and feels that the XAML markup language was "positioned to replace HTML". XAML is completely dependent on Windows and discriminates against other systems like Linux. OOXML as well works only in Microsoft Office and was not made to 'play' well with other office suites.
The ECIS believes that the result of Microsoft's actions will prevent any real choice for consumers.
On the bright side, earlier issues raised by Symantec and other anti-virus and security software creators have been solved and Symantec and a few other companies have been able to release updates in time for the release of Vista.
Like most companies, Microsoft tries to keep a strong market position, the problem comes that unlike other companies who try to release products that actually are innovative and compete with competitors, Microsoft has a strategy of releasing a not so unique Windows. If Windows were considered stable and secure that may be enough to easily hold their market position ignoring the overpriced issue with Vista. Most people use some version of Windows and it provides them with most of what they want. What it usually fails to provide is security and stability - try leaving a standard Windows system up for 2 months of standard use. Vista adds another feature that people will not like, limitations. With the security features created for Vista, users are more restricted and put in a box that allows them to use their computer how Microsoft thinks they want to use it. There is no thinking outside of the box in Vista. This is not something that will help Microsoft keep users. We are already seeing in the news people and companies saying that Vista will not work for them and they are forced to choose from Linux and Mac.
Labels: EC, microsoft, office, os, vista, windows
17 October 2006
Open Source Software is not innovative?
In a letter to the European Commission the group Initiative for Software Choice (ISC) spoke against a the EC's study into the role of open source software in the European economy.
In the letter the ISC states that the OSS model is successful and doesn't need any support to help them become successful and that the report doesn't mention non-OSS as a positive to the market, but rather as something that provides 'headaches' to OSS. The letter further states that other software models have produced some great software and the report is not balanced in this regard.
Yes, there are great software products in OSS and propriety models, but the propriety software does have a tendency to try to prevent OSS from existing in a common market. Propriety software prevents users in some cases from using anything else and some protocols and licensed in such a way to prevent OSS from being able to connect with propriety software.
The letter threatens that actions taken to promote OSS will destroy the propriety market and that innovation is lead by propriety software rather than OSS. The propriety standard creates innovation as it gives developers incentive to create innovative software.
This can be completely refuted when we look at the beginning of the computer software industry and the current OSS trends. The innovations that allowed the computer to become so useful were originally similar to OSS. Also the OSS market has some software which is leading the market on innovation, for example the desktop environment Xgl which is more innovative the Vista's desktop especially that it was developed before Vista's desktop became known.
The ISC's known pro-Microsoft stance and agenda and Microsoft funding leaves one wondering if this isn't Microsoft trying to protect it's own software against the OSS movement which seems to be the biggest competition currently for Microsoft. The recent revelation of MS funding SCO, which has sued Linux over patent issues and is in the process of losing the case also leaves one wondering about any company or organization funded or supported by Microsoft.
In the letter the ISC states that the OSS model is successful and doesn't need any support to help them become successful and that the report doesn't mention non-OSS as a positive to the market, but rather as something that provides 'headaches' to OSS. The letter further states that other software models have produced some great software and the report is not balanced in this regard.
Yes, there are great software products in OSS and propriety models, but the propriety software does have a tendency to try to prevent OSS from existing in a common market. Propriety software prevents users in some cases from using anything else and some protocols and licensed in such a way to prevent OSS from being able to connect with propriety software.
The letter threatens that actions taken to promote OSS will destroy the propriety market and that innovation is lead by propriety software rather than OSS. The propriety standard creates innovation as it gives developers incentive to create innovative software.
This can be completely refuted when we look at the beginning of the computer software industry and the current OSS trends. The innovations that allowed the computer to become so useful were originally similar to OSS. Also the OSS market has some software which is leading the market on innovation, for example the desktop environment Xgl which is more innovative the Vista's desktop especially that it was developed before Vista's desktop became known.
The ISC's known pro-Microsoft stance and agenda and Microsoft funding leaves one wondering if this isn't Microsoft trying to protect it's own software against the OSS movement which seems to be the biggest competition currently for Microsoft. The recent revelation of MS funding SCO, which has sued Linux over patent issues and is in the process of losing the case also leaves one wondering about any company or organization funded or supported by Microsoft.
13 September 2006
Vista's Security Questioned by European Commission
Semantec has already addressed concerns about Vista's security protocols preventing other anti-virus and security firms from releasing software that will work with Windows Vista. Now the European Commission has stated that the security features in Vista could cause problems for Microsoft with EU antitrust laws.
The security is created in such a way that makes it hard if not impossible for external security applications to run properly on Vista. Also as it is usually said, two anti-virus programs should not be run at the same time, as they can either miss viruses or be oversensitive in finding a virus in a file that isn't. The inability to remove the security features of Microsoft could cause a similar situation.
Microsoft has stated that making Vista secure is what everyone wanted and that's what they are doing. Their methods behind that are a bit strange by my standards. I guess we all can make a safe operating system by not allowing any applications to run on it. Granted Microsoft has said that 3rd party security software can be installed at kernel level, but it has to be signed. Here's where we have the trouble as well. Signed and certified software for MS products costs money. I'm not going to even hazard a guess as to how much. Then we have open source security software which is free for the taking and is making no profit. How can such software gain the signature for Vista.
Microsoft is as well stating exactly what they did in the US antitrust case when they said Internet Explorer is required for the operation of Windows because of the way the code is written. Now the three main security features of Vista (BitLocker drive encryption, Windows Defender, and Windows Security Center) are all said to be written so deep in the code of Windows that they would be very difficult to remove and Microsoft has no idea of how to do it at such a late date.
Hmm, maybe they should have responded to the EC in March when they asked for the data, not August. Also how can other operating systems have a more modular approach to system design separating the kernel from other parts of the system and still remain secure while Microsoft can't? If any application is written with the code as tangled as Microsoft is stating these security features and Windows are, it is going to have a lot of problems. Their is a reason software design tries to be as modular as possible and why object oriented design has been created and become popular. If you break everything into modules it's easy to find the bugs and easier to fix them as well. It would also be easier to remove such features that prevent competition, like the feature of Vista that makes installing 3rd party security solutions difficult.
More information regarding Microsoft and the EC's current standings can be found here.
The security is created in such a way that makes it hard if not impossible for external security applications to run properly on Vista. Also as it is usually said, two anti-virus programs should not be run at the same time, as they can either miss viruses or be oversensitive in finding a virus in a file that isn't. The inability to remove the security features of Microsoft could cause a similar situation.
Microsoft has stated that making Vista secure is what everyone wanted and that's what they are doing. Their methods behind that are a bit strange by my standards. I guess we all can make a safe operating system by not allowing any applications to run on it. Granted Microsoft has said that 3rd party security software can be installed at kernel level, but it has to be signed. Here's where we have the trouble as well. Signed and certified software for MS products costs money. I'm not going to even hazard a guess as to how much. Then we have open source security software which is free for the taking and is making no profit. How can such software gain the signature for Vista.
Microsoft is as well stating exactly what they did in the US antitrust case when they said Internet Explorer is required for the operation of Windows because of the way the code is written. Now the three main security features of Vista (BitLocker drive encryption, Windows Defender, and Windows Security Center) are all said to be written so deep in the code of Windows that they would be very difficult to remove and Microsoft has no idea of how to do it at such a late date.
Hmm, maybe they should have responded to the EC in March when they asked for the data, not August. Also how can other operating systems have a more modular approach to system design separating the kernel from other parts of the system and still remain secure while Microsoft can't? If any application is written with the code as tangled as Microsoft is stating these security features and Windows are, it is going to have a lot of problems. Their is a reason software design tries to be as modular as possible and why object oriented design has been created and become popular. If you break everything into modules it's easy to find the bugs and easier to fix them as well. It would also be easier to remove such features that prevent competition, like the feature of Vista that makes installing 3rd party security solutions difficult.
More information regarding Microsoft and the EC's current standings can be found here.
Labels: EC, microsoft, security, vista, windows
10 September 2006
EU Commission vs. Microsoft - not a witch-hunt
I've been reading comments about the EU Commission's actions vs. Microsoft and a lot of people have the wrong idea about what the Commission is doing.
A lot of the comments mention things about witch-hunt tactics and think the Commission is trying to hurt Microsoft in some way and is being unfair because of not going after other companies such as Apple.
A person has to remember this is in regard to anti-trust laws and anti-monopoly, it's not about only providing their own products on the system or trying to prevent other software from running on the system, it's about being the one company with a tremendous amount of market share in comparison to all competitors while having business practices that try to force everyone to avoid competition. MS has the market lead, they do not have to try to step on the territory of people such as Adobe by trying to include their own document reader in their software with it greatly tied into the system and defaulting to it or prevent any other company from producing software completely compatible with the Office Suite by not releasing any standards. Of course also Microsoft's actions taken to ensure that companies do not release computers with other operating systems or with no operating system for people who either own a MS license and don't want to buy another that they don't need or for those who want to install Linux on their system and don't feel like building their own system nor paying for an OS that they have no intention of using.
Microsoft is trying to manipulate people into thinking that the Commission is being unfair against them and is not trying to cooperate. The problem is it is not the Commission's responsibility to tell any company if their software fits within the European anti-trust laws. It is the responsibility of Microsoft to know those laws, which they do, and produce a system that fits within them and try not to hold onto their monopoly. A company that releases good software and plays fair need not worry about holding onto market share, people will use the software anyway, some will try other software, but provided your software is stable enough for people's wishes and includes features that people want which is usually the case for Microsoft software, excluding the stability.
As an example, I personally dislike Windows XP, but find Office XP nice and it was the first version of Outlook I actually liked. If an option is provided people will pick and choose the things they like and market share will not decrease too much from playing fair.
When a company doesn't play fair though, people begin to hate all of the products because they dislike one that they have to have to use another. At the same time they also hate the company as a whole because of the company's business practices. This is the main reason for Microsoft to continue using those dirty tactics. Microsoft as a company has a sickness that involves being dreadfully afraid of failure. They have become such a huge company but still are terrified that they will fail and their practices show just that.
A lot of the comments mention things about witch-hunt tactics and think the Commission is trying to hurt Microsoft in some way and is being unfair because of not going after other companies such as Apple.
A person has to remember this is in regard to anti-trust laws and anti-monopoly, it's not about only providing their own products on the system or trying to prevent other software from running on the system, it's about being the one company with a tremendous amount of market share in comparison to all competitors while having business practices that try to force everyone to avoid competition. MS has the market lead, they do not have to try to step on the territory of people such as Adobe by trying to include their own document reader in their software with it greatly tied into the system and defaulting to it or prevent any other company from producing software completely compatible with the Office Suite by not releasing any standards. Of course also Microsoft's actions taken to ensure that companies do not release computers with other operating systems or with no operating system for people who either own a MS license and don't want to buy another that they don't need or for those who want to install Linux on their system and don't feel like building their own system nor paying for an OS that they have no intention of using.
Microsoft is trying to manipulate people into thinking that the Commission is being unfair against them and is not trying to cooperate. The problem is it is not the Commission's responsibility to tell any company if their software fits within the European anti-trust laws. It is the responsibility of Microsoft to know those laws, which they do, and produce a system that fits within them and try not to hold onto their monopoly. A company that releases good software and plays fair need not worry about holding onto market share, people will use the software anyway, some will try other software, but provided your software is stable enough for people's wishes and includes features that people want which is usually the case for Microsoft software, excluding the stability.
As an example, I personally dislike Windows XP, but find Office XP nice and it was the first version of Outlook I actually liked. If an option is provided people will pick and choose the things they like and market share will not decrease too much from playing fair.
When a company doesn't play fair though, people begin to hate all of the products because they dislike one that they have to have to use another. At the same time they also hate the company as a whole because of the company's business practices. This is the main reason for Microsoft to continue using those dirty tactics. Microsoft as a company has a sickness that involves being dreadfully afraid of failure. They have become such a huge company but still are terrified that they will fail and their practices show just that.
08 September 2006
Microsoft Playing Victim
Microsoft is at it again, using the same tactics they used during the anti-trust case in the US when Windows 98 was threatened to be delayed.
Their argument then was that any delay of Windows would have wide, negative effects on the personal computer industry.
This time around it's in Europe and not the US, but the tactics are similar with Microsoft trying to make themselves the victim saying that the European Commission will not respond to them and will not tell them what they need to do to have Vista released in Europe on time. Along with this a letter recently has been sent to the Commission stating how a delay will prevent European businesses from competing.
The European Commission has already stated that Microsoft has to be compliant with EU competition rules and once their software matches those requirements they will be allowed to release Vista. Microsoft has already been fined twice for a total of $998 million because of their inactivity in fulfilling those requirements and they haven't responded at all to the Commission until recently.
The lack of companies being able to receive Windows Vista in the EU will do nothing to prevent them from competing. Thousands of businesses around the world will not be updating their systems for many years yet. There are still businesses using Windows versions as old as Windows 98 and 95 without having any trouble competing. Not to mention the companies using Macs and Linux. The only company who will have trouble competing will be Microsoft due to their inability to release Vista on time. It will hurt their market share a bit, but it is their responsibility to provide software that does not try to promote a Microsoft Empire that forces people to use their computers within Microsoft guidelines and within their opinion of how a computer should be used.
If you want more information on the issue you can read here.
Their argument then was that any delay of Windows would have wide, negative effects on the personal computer industry.
This time around it's in Europe and not the US, but the tactics are similar with Microsoft trying to make themselves the victim saying that the European Commission will not respond to them and will not tell them what they need to do to have Vista released in Europe on time. Along with this a letter recently has been sent to the Commission stating how a delay will prevent European businesses from competing.
The European Commission has already stated that Microsoft has to be compliant with EU competition rules and once their software matches those requirements they will be allowed to release Vista. Microsoft has already been fined twice for a total of $998 million because of their inactivity in fulfilling those requirements and they haven't responded at all to the Commission until recently.
The lack of companies being able to receive Windows Vista in the EU will do nothing to prevent them from competing. Thousands of businesses around the world will not be updating their systems for many years yet. There are still businesses using Windows versions as old as Windows 98 and 95 without having any trouble competing. Not to mention the companies using Macs and Linux. The only company who will have trouble competing will be Microsoft due to their inability to release Vista on time. It will hurt their market share a bit, but it is their responsibility to provide software that does not try to promote a Microsoft Empire that forces people to use their computers within Microsoft guidelines and within their opinion of how a computer should be used.
If you want more information on the issue you can read here.
