backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 127 comment(s) - last by 306maxi.. on Jun 30 at 6:04 AM


  (Source: New York Times)
Big brother is watching Microsoft

Imagine someone coming into your room and watching you every day as you go about your business, looking through your stuff, waiting for you to make a mistake.  This unpleasant sounding scenario is analogous to what Microsoft is facing as Windows 7 is being reviewed by the federal government.

With Windows 7 set to likely launch holiday 2009 (based on Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer's public remarks), Microsoft handed over the code and copies of Windows 7 in its current state to Department of Justice Technical Committee (TC) members to comb for possible antitrust violations.

The TC is the result of a long legal battle between Microsoft and smaller competitors in various fields, which all allege that Microsoft tries to write its Windows code in such a way to exclude them by defaulting to Microsoft applications.  The U.S. government agreed that such anticompetitive antitrust violations were occurring and in November 2001, Microsoft finally agreed to settle with the U.S. government and face oversight.

With the final judgment a year later, Microsoft was forced to deal with inspectors during the development of Windows Vista.  The inspection, which now is going on with the new OS focused on four key middleware categories -- e-mail, instant messaging, media playback and web browsing.

The effects on Microsoft can easily be speculated.  While it might have been coincidence, when inspections started between 2004 and 2005, Microsoft made little progress on Internet Explorer, while Mozilla released Firefox and Thunderbird.  Some speculate that this was due to Microsoft trying to remove Windows code that defaults services to IE and Outlook, or trying to make such code more subtle.

Meanwhile in the messaging sector, Microsoft abandoned Windows Messenger altogether, splitting it into MSN Messenger for private users and Office Communicator for business users.  Both programs were much less attached to Windows than their predecessor.

In the aftermath of Vista, Google complained that Microsoft was violating the terms of its agreement and defaulting search traffic away from Google.  The complaint eventually led in part to an extension of the supervisory period by the TC over Microsoft.

Microsoft, which had likely been eagerly anticipating freedom from inspectors has now been forced to live with U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly verdict of two more years of oversight -- about the amount of time needed to develop Windows 7.

Each month the Justice Department, the states' attorney generals, and Microsoft file a joint "status report" and the first one just came out offering insight into how Windows 7 is faring in the inspectors’ eyes.  The first report came June 17 and offered the following overview of the process:

Microsoft has recently authorized TC access to another early build of Windows 7 (the successor to Vista), which the TC will review. As the builds of Windows 7 progress, the TC will conduct middleware-related tests in an effort to assure that bugs fixed in Vista do not reappear in the next operating system, as well as to assure final judgment compliance generally.

The "bugs" referred to are compatibility issues with various software that Microsoft mostly fixed over the course of Windows Vista's development.  Microsoft contends that these were due to tricky communications flaws, not purposeful attempts to break competitors' products.

The report adds:

The TC's on-going review of Windows' treatment of middleware defaults is being expanded to include an operating system source code scan in an effort to determine whether some commonality in the code accounts for default overrides. The TC also is investigating certain default browser overrides, which Microsoft asserts arise from reasonable technical requirements that competing browsers apparently do not implement. The TC will discuss its findings with Microsoft once this inquiry is concluded.

The latter part refers to the ongoing review of the beta version of Microsoft's Internet Explorer 8 browser.  More interestingly it reveals that unlike previous investigations, the TC has moved up to actually scanning the Windows source code.  Investigators hope to use this to spot any antitrust violations, even subtly coded ones.

Meanwhile Microsoft is forced to watch and wait while the DOJ continues its investigations.  It is entirely possible that its staff will have to make major changes to the code of Windows 7 and IE 8 to make them acceptable to the TC.  Worse yet, as eWeek's Joe Wilcox points out, "Microsoft is making a godawful amount of Internet Explorer changes and taking risks with application and Web site compatibility. Surely somebody will try to interfere with the changes for competitive gain. Will it be Apple, Google or Mozilla?"

The world of inspections is not a pretty one for Microsoft, but it’s one that for the time being it must live with.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By Spivonious on 6/22/2008 11:24:11 AM , Rating: 5
Why isn't Apple under any of these investigations? I'd argue that iTunes has the biggest market share for media players, not WMP. And what about not letting other hardware manufacturers make OSX computers? That sounds pretty anti-competitive to me.

Google includes their toolbar with almost every piece of software on the Web.

Symantec sued successfully to hurt Vista's security model just so they wouldn't have to rewrite their product.

Mozilla's Firefox has a sizeable portion of the web browser market, and even people who know nothing about computers know what Firefox is.

The era of the big, evil Microsoft has been over for almost 5 years. It's time for the DOJ to move on.




RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By jeromekwok on 6/22/08, Rating: 0
By gerf on 6/22/2008 12:18:32 PM , Rating: 1
Not clone the software, but possibly make games for it without having to pay Nintendo fees. Not necessarily for the Homebrew market, but for other games creators (including NSFW ones) to make their own games without having to ask Nintendo if they're allowed to.

Just imagine the uses for the controllers in a Girls Gone Wild spin-off game!


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By blaster5k on 6/22/2008 12:26:50 PM , Rating: 5
People have a choice though. They don't have to buy Windows. And if Microsoft raises prices more than it should or forces people to use their own ill-featured software with their OS, even more players may step in and create a more cost competitive OS with more features. That's the glory of free markets.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By kelmon on 6/22/2008 12:41:05 PM , Rating: 4
That's the theory, yes, but in reality the barriers to entry to this market are very high. Specifically, anyone hoping to replace Microsoft needs to create a platform that does pretty much everything that Microsoft's products do otherwise there is little incentive for potential customers to switch. Given this you'd have to be able to invest a heck of a lot of resource to produce a competitor and the risk of failure is probably what puts people off. Both Apple and Linux have got better products in some areas but neither has a "complete" package for various reasons. Without the complete package, companies are not going to switch from Windows in numbers. Home users, of course, can switch immediately because they don't have the same level of investment or requirements.

This situation might change in the coming years but, right now, there is no practical alternative to Microsoft for any business that has already invested in Microsoft technologies.


By blaster5k on 6/22/2008 1:58:31 PM , Rating: 3
I realize that. Many companies have spent years and piles of money developing software that's designed for Windows platforms. Developing a fully competitive solution is no easy task either. Any transition would take time and would not come without a good deal of pain, but my point is simply that it is not in Microsoft's interest to let that happen -- even if the barriers to entry are high.

They can get away with pushing things a little bit because of that, but the more they do it, the more likely they are to hurt their bottom line in the long run. They've probably already stepped a little too far in that direction since Apple and Linux market share are climbing at a good clip (granted, they are still ridicuously small fractions of the overall market). Without government intervention, I still believe there are pressures that will keep them in line.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By caqde on 6/22/2008 2:07:41 PM , Rating: 3
Not to mention the average consumer doesn't know anything about the other OS's or even that they exist. They may know about Apple's Mac, but they can't comprehend the miner differences.

Anyways one of the biggest technical barriers is the issue where the consumer would likely want full software compatibility with Windows software, or the OS is going to need a large backing by the software developers ensuring that there is a large base of games and applications similar to what they see in MS Windows. The only issue is that one of those developers happens to be Microsoft and the users would want access to Microsoft Office...


By caqde on 6/23/2008 3:28:37 AM , Rating: 2
.. I don't really understand why this was rated down so much. It is true. Maybe because most of you are tech savy you don't see this, but look around you. Your fellow non geeks are very very clingy, they don't like change, they want everything they have to work in their next system. Heck once I was asked if a Windows 3.1 program would work in VISTA! This is common to me. People like to keep things the way they are.

Once a company can find a way to grab those users away from Microsoft Windows they have won. But until then Windows will live on.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By BansheeX on 6/22/2008 8:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's the theory, yes, but in reality the barriers to entry to this market are very high. Specifically, anyone hoping to replace Microsoft needs to create a platform that does pretty much everything that Microsoft's products do otherwise there is little incentive for potential customers to switch. Given this you'd have to be able to invest a heck of a lot of resource to produce a competitor and the risk of failure is probably what puts people off. Both Apple and Linux have got better products in some areas but neither has a "complete" package for various reasons. Without the complete package, companies are not going to switch from Windows in numbers. Home users, of course, can switch immediately because they don't have the same level of investment or requirements.


Hold on a second, let me translate this into something I can understand... in order to switch to something better, something better needs to be created. Linux and Mac can't because [no reason given] and it's not their own fault because [no reason given]. Therefore, we need to penalize the succeeding product (MS) in order to artificially prop up failing ideas, one of which doesn't even cost money (Linux).

Notice the missing parts of your argument. You're about to create a disincentive for success in the market based on two flawed opinions:

a. Microsoft does not deserve its current position and you want a cheaper alternative.
b. when competitors in a fair environment are losing badly, we need government to step in and subsidize their losses with taxpayer money or money from the winning establishment.

Suppose it's a college football game and your team is losing 52 to 3 at halftime. You say "gee, this is boring, that other team has been a perennial powerhouse and gets all the good recruits as a result. I really hate them for some reason, I want something else. think the government should take some of their players and put them on our side in the second half because of how soundly they're drubbing us. It can't be fair what they're doing."

If you can't figure out why fair monopolies aren't self-sustaining or what happens to incentives after you do something like the above, then you don't understand why government intervention in a marketplace leads to worse and worse products and eventual economic collapse.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By caqde on 6/23/2008 3:18:19 AM , Rating: 2
...

Well you could write an entire book about the reasons and the barriers to competition and most people just don't want to take the time to understand the complexity of the situation. In order to make a competitor to Microsoft you need ->

A) Software on COMMON STORE (Walmart, Staples, etc) shelves that the user can buy. (I.E the Apple Store and Fry's are not common [Both sell MAC software])
B) To Have computers sold with OS via common computer retailers and OEM's. (Dell, Walmart, HP, etc..)
C) To be compatible with common PNP peripheral hardware [USB/PCI] (Modems, Printers, Scanners, etc) and is compatible with new hardware when it hits the shelves.

Linux meets none of these Mac on the other hand meets the last one for the most part. Issue A and B go hand in hand retailers and OEM's won't build computers for these OS's because of issue A and Retailers won't sell software for OS's because of issue B. Now Issue C well companies don't want to spend money on developing drivers for an OS that isn't that widespread and they want to keep their hardware under wraps so potential free driver developers for the hardware won't be able to make drivers for the hardware for some time...

Anyways this is a really complicated issue and this is just one of many many reasons Linux and Mac are not as widespread as they could be.

To make a list the issues include drivers, software, marketing, User Friendliness, backwards compatibility(with preexisting Windows Software), and etc etc etc.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By sprockkets on 6/23/2008 12:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well, most software on the shelves for Microsoft was made for the win9x era, and won't work properly with security in mind. Second, most software you buy in the store is because of Windows deficiencies. Third, the licenses are harsh. Fourth, most shelf software is of poor quality.

What would you have to add in Apple's or Linux's case for software? Even Linux has GPL a/v software, if you think you need it. Heck, Linux runs scripts in the background that automatically clean out temp junk and other stuff to keep the system running optimally. And Linux and OSX will never suffer the Winrot registry slowdown, because it has none!

And, both Dell and Walmart sell Linux based computers, with perhaps Walmart just stopping it.

Both Mac and Linux use the same print system, so to say that a printer works in OSX and not in Linux is a lie. Oh, some printers are stupid and need the computer to do the work for them. Whose fault is it that they will not make a driver for Linux, Linux or the manufacturer? Why make one with such small marketshare anyhow?


By caqde on 6/23/2008 5:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
I was not talking about security software. I was referring to applications and games. Like Adobe's Creative Suite, Microsoft Office, and games like Sins of a Solar Empire to games as simple as Bejeweled.

Dell and Walmart "sell" Linux machines, but the issue is that they don't actively sell them to the consumer.

quote:
Both Mac and Linux use the same print system, so to say that a printer works in OSX and not in Linux is a lie. Oh, some printers are stupid and need the computer to do the work for them.


I used printers as an example of the type of Hardware that needs active driver support for the consumer to want to use that OS. Even if they use the same print system. The consumer needs a simple wizard based installer for the target OS before they are likely to use their printer.

Basically they need to slap the CD they got after buying their printer into the computer and be able to click on an option that says install printer driver and it should install and work. They are not going to want to do any work to get their device to work. They want to come home from work sit down on their computer and have everything work for them..


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By kelmon on 6/23/2008 4:34:15 AM , Rating: 3
Whoah, there. You've definitely mistranslated the message that I was trying to send. Let me have another go based on your interpretation:

quote:
in order to switch to something better, something better needs to be created.


No argument there. There's clearly no point switching to something that's worse than what you already have.

quote:
Linux and Mac can't because [no reason given] and it's not their own fault because [no reason given].


I don't think I mentioned that Linux or Apple or anyone else (IBM, Novell, Sun Microsystems, etc.) can't develop a competing platform, but simply that doing so would be very expensive and any such project runs a high risk of failure. Microsoft has proven that it is possible to develop a "complete package" of software and services but it's taken many years to achieve this at considerable expense. It's possible that other companies are working to deliver a competitive alternative to the Microsoft ecosystem but we simply don't know about it. My point here, however, is simply that it is very expensive to develop such a competing system and therefore other companies may be deciding not to take the risk.

quote:
Therefore, we need to penalize the succeeding product (MS) in order to artificially prop up failing ideas, one of which doesn't even cost money (Linux).


I must have missed the part where I said this. All I recall saying in alternate postings is that Microsoft abused its position as the manufacturer of Windows by preventing customers from using software from alternative developers as their default to, for example, play media file or write emails.

quote:
Notice the missing parts of your argument. You're about to create a disincentive for success in the market based on two flawed opinions:

a. Microsoft does not deserve its current position and you want a cheaper alternative.


What? Where have I said that? What I said was that Microsoft is being investigated (again) due to past practices of locking-in customers to their own products by preventing them from using alternatives. Whether I think they deserve their position (which, incidentally, I do, thanks for asking) is immaterial to what has gone on. Of course, a cheaper alternative would be nice - who wouldn't want that?

quote:
b. when competitors in a fair environment are losing badly, we need government to step in and subsidize their losses with taxpayer money or money from the winning establishment.


But that's the point - the environment wasn't fair. Microsoft abused its position by locking in customers to its own products by preventing them from using alternatives. This, please note, has nothing to do with alternative platforms but rather running software on Windows that hasn't been written by Microsoft (e.g. browsing the web with Firefox rather than Internet Explorer).

You are making this into Microsoft vs. Apple, or Microsoft vs. Linux, or Microsoft vs. [insert other platform company name here], and that's not the reason why the US government investigated them the first time, or why they want to look at the Windows 7 source code. Equally, I think most people here know that I'm a Mac-user and I have absolutely no intention of getting into that particular debate here, mostly because it's not relevant to the article. My comment was simply due to the statement that if Microsoft is bad then the free market would produce competitors, which we know is incorrect. Having started my working life as an economist I am familiar with these concepts and particularly that of "perfect competition", which states that in a perfectly competitive market, no supplier is ever able to control it because there are so many other competitors with equally as good products. In such a market Microsoft wouldn't be investigated because customers could switch to an alternative supplier with no cost. In reality, as I noted in the comment, the barriers to entry to this market are very high and this is what prevents a competitor to Microsoft from appearing. And, please bare in mind that when I talk about a competitor, I am not referring to something as relatively trivial as the OS - we're talking about the OS, applications and services that a business implements that form a "complete package". Any migration to a competitor requires that the competitor provides the "complete package" and, for example, Apple doesn't have an alternative to SharePoint. Apple, or anyone else would need to do a lot more than develop a whizzy OS to be a real competitor to Microsoft now and that costs a lot of resources (time, money, people).

Sorry that was so long but I hope that clarifies the point.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.
By BansheeX on 6/23/2008 9:46:51 AM , Rating: 2
I guess I entirely miss the purpose of your post then since you offered no recommended course of action (I inferred what it usually comes down to even though you claim ignorance), nor do you direct your thinking inward toward your platform of choise, and were completely non-descript in your accusations.

quote:
Microsoft abused its position by locking in customers to its own products by preventing them from using alternatives.


I am confused as hell on this one. There is nothing illegal about a closed proprietary platform, nor is Microsoft forcing anybody to use their operating system. If they did do this, it can't be a successful long-term exploit and would create a window for competitors, because people like being able to use stuff like Firefox in Windows, particularly if they find the closed offerings insufficient for their needs. But there's nothing illegal about it. There's nothing illegal about iTunes only offering its own format, or Olive Garden "locking in" its customers to its own breadsticks instead of letting a competitor's to be sold in its own restaurant. They can't be sued by Fizzoli's for anti-competitive practices by disallowing other breadsticks in their restaurant even if 90% of Italian restaurants are Olive Gardens. I mean, this is entering the realm of the ridiculous.


RE: Apple, Google, Norton, Mozilla, etc.