AT&T Tech Support 360Think tank to EU: Unbundle Windows on PCs
The Globalization Institute, a Brussels-based European Union think tank, has recommended the EU require all PCs to be sold without preloaded operating systems such as Microsoft Windows.
There is no reason why computer operating systems could not follow the same model as computer hard drives and processors, which comply with standards that allow for broad compatibility as well as competition in the market, said the report, which was submitted to the EU's regulatory body, the European Commission.
Such a policy would lead to increased competition and innovation in the area of computer operating systems, something the Globalization Institute report said it believes the EU is looking for.
"For two decades, Microsoft has enjoyed monopolistic power in the operating system market. The Competition Commissioner has signaled the desire to see more competition in this sector. Unbundling would foster a competitive market, increase consumer choice and reduce prices," said the Globalization Institute report (click here for PDF).
The signal the institute refers to is the September 17, 2007, ruling in which the EU's Court of First Instance upheld commission rulings requiring Microsoft to share certain technical specifications with rivals and to offer customers an unbundled option in cases where Microsoft has tied together two separate products. The court ruling also upheld a $613 million antitrust fine against Microsoft that had been imposed by the European Commissioner for Competition, Neelie Kroes.
Candace Lombardi is a staff writer at CNET News.com
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
Win Win.
realisable. Why is that ? First Hardware support on Linux is lacking
due to contracts in between MS and Hardware vendors. Mac os X
which would be a viable alternative is never going to run on cheap
comoditized hardware such as 99.999999% of PCs today are built
upon. Open a normal PC and see the mess , open a Macpro and see
the attention brought to the hardware design.Top linux
workstations are far behind the times.
I seem to remember something about those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.
There are economies of scale the customer can benefit from.
OS progress that it actually stalls nowdays. Few software houses
would come to Linux because of this . There are just too many
environments , distros , windowservers out there to obtain a
stable platform that joe and jane average can use without being
boggled to simply turn the thing off . MS as much as it is evil
may be a necessary one ... if the decision goes through
hardware vendors would have to rethink their efforts in terms of
development , something they have been very very very lacking
to do. Imagine what this would be with over 100 Linux distros.
Microsoft may have a monopoly - but the alternative is anarchy and that serves no one.
Hardware manufacturers should instead be given the option of unbundling the OS, or having Windows pre-installed with a 2nd non-Microsoft OS in a dual boot configuration. The latter option would allow consumers to directly compare operating systems and decide which they prefer working in.
make an effort on their drivers. It would lead to a temporary
relapse before heading back in where the Massive $$$$. That
technique was used before and with very little results.
machine but it comes at no cost for the user it is the historical
system for Macs . Upgrades are cheap if not outright free if you
suscribe to a software support program (not Applecare) or are a
developer , no activation code no serial number unless you go for
Os X server which is basicly a Mac os X client with client
management capabilities DNS , DHCP , AFP services , Tomcat ,
Open Directory , Kerberos , Imap / pop3 services etc. You can build
these tools for free but the configuration takes time and energy.
better then XP.
called again?
innovation by promoting competition instead of monopoly.
Businesses buy PC's with the OS installed because it drastically reduces their IT and support costs. They can work with Dell, HP, etc. to deliver brand new PC's to empolyees with OEM images that work right out of the box. Imagine the productivity loss that would incur if every employee in a company had to configure thier PC's or call the helpdesk.
Can someone please explain how shipping blank PC's will benefit consumers? Oh I forgot, you can already buy a blank PC or a PC with Linux or a Mac.
Think tank? I say fish tank :-)
having to go find an engine.
Option 2: Ship with a non-dominate OS (less than 50% market share) pre-installed. Again, no vendor would choose this option because they wouldn?t be able to sell in quantity.
Option 3: Ship with the dominant OS pre-installed along with another OS in a dual boot configuration. This is likely what vendors would choose since it means they can decide which alternate OS to install, and whether they will provide support or allow it be community supported. It would also mean that competition for the users? loyalty would be ongoing because the user would have more than one OS on their computer.
vertically integrated company. They make the whole widget. If
Microsoft made hardware, they would have the right to bundle
the two together. If Dell wrote its own operating system... etc
etc. When manufacturers include OSes that have market value,
for steeply discounted prices (or free in some cases) that can be
viewed as anti-competitive.
Apple creates the entire solution. That would be like you buying
a TV without any UI, or a toaster without a timer, saying "Other
people make timers"
Assumption: Competing operating systems are viable alternatives.
The Reality: As much as we like to hate Microsoft, it runs almost all of the software available at retail. Most of us have an investment in software that we still need to use. It takes a significant market penetration before it becomes viable for software vendors to support another OS.
Assumption: If Windows is unbundled, the alternatives will be cheaper.
The Reality: The EU or any organization cannot dictate the price that vendors sell their software. In order the get the automated installation and configuration that is desired, it would have to be prepared by the vendor and sold by the vendor. There is no guarantee that the vendor would sell it at a desirable price.
Assumption: Windows would cost about what it does now.
The Reality: If Microsoft were forced to compete at retail, they would simply lower their price of their Vista basic operating system in order to ensure market dominance. It may even be cheaper than the available Linux alternatives! Although this would save consumers a few euros, it would ensure Microsoft?s continued monopoly. Back door politics may also ensure Windows dominance.
The only difference the Globalization Institutes suggestion would have is that instead of a monopoly by force, we would have a monopoly by choice. The end result is the same.
The ONLY way to have the competitive environment that is desired is to force vendors to install an alternate OS when Windows is pre-installed. Only then would we have sufficient market penetration for third parties to begin developing the necessary software to make competition viable. Users could still use their existing software in Microsoft?s OS while becoming familiar with the "alternative".
This would be the least harmful to end users and would in fact benefit users because they would have twice the software with their new computers.
DO NOT even allow vendors to ship without an OS since it may be used as a loophole to perpetuate the Microsoft monopoly.
- DO IT
-
by ethana2
September 27, 2007 1:41 PM PDT
- I would /love/ to see three PC's side by side running Windows Vista, Ubuntu Ultimate, and Mac OSX.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 33 Comments >>Compiz fusion FTW!