DailyTech - Microsoft Promises to Compete Fairly

Submit News

IT Microsoft Promises to Compete Fairly
Tuan Nguyen (Blog) - July 20, 2006 3:37 PM

66 comment(s) - last by Kishkumen.. on Jul 21 at 7:24 PM

The company developed 12 internal principles to abide by

Still feeling the pinch of the EU's decision to fine $357 million, Microsoft this week released a formal pledge, a list of 12 rules that the company said it will abide by, in order to facility healthy competition in the software market. Microsoft said that it will comply by the self-imposed rules, as well as comply with industry and government regulations.

During a conference, Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith indicated to an audience made up of industry professionals that his company would be focusing on user freedom, choices and that companies can expect this trend to continue well after Vista. "In the broadest sense, I am here to pledge Microsoft's continued commitment to vigorous competition and vital innovation in the software marketplace -- and to explain how this commitment is guiding our development of the next-generation Windows operating system, Windows Vista," said Smith.

Microsoft outlined the following 12 self-imposed commitments:

Installation of any software
Easy access for software makers
Defaults for non-Microsoft programs
Exclusive promotion of non-Microsoft programs
Business terms (no retaliation against PC makers that support non-Microsoft software)
Disclosure of APIs
Freedom of choice in Internet services
Open Internet access in Windows
No exclusivity in middleware contracts
Availability of communications protocols
Availability of Microsoft patents
Support for industry standards

Microsoft also addressed the issue of net neutrality. Smith said that Microsoft would "design and license Windows so that it does not block access to any lawful Web or impose any fee for reaching any non-Microsoft Web site or using a non-Microsoft Web service." However, Smith admitted that the 12 principles were not entirely comprehensive and that there were a lot of answers still left unanswered.

Meanwhile, the EU has not backed off. According to regulations, Microsoft has until the end of this month to comply with EU regulations or face an increase in fines. The EU stated in a report that it would fine Microsoft double the amount -- roughly $634 million -- it received last week if it failed again on July 31st.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

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

RE: Eh

By Xavian on 7/21/2006 6:32:28 AM , Rating: 2

" pretty much agree. If you want to talk monopolistic, it's Apple. They make their own hardware. They make software that will only run on their own hardware. You can't really upgrade or modify most of their systems on your own either. About the only thing you can do to a Mac is upgrade the RAM and hard drive. Of course this changes with Intel's CPUs a little, but there are still more limitations. "

You do know what a monopoly means right? what you described is merely lack of consumer choice on components but nothing resembling a monopoly.

I agree with the fact that usually Apple gets a free pass on a lot of things, but thats probably because they are not a monopoly in any sector (not even Mp3 Players, which is currently around 40%), but microsoft is a clear monopoly in atleast 3 market sectors and that is why the rules of the game change for microsoft, because monopolies are bad for the market.

An example of an monopoly would be this:

Lets say Apple holds the monopoly, they do all the stuff they have done before however they have a 90+% marketshare in PC's and a small company (lets say microsoft) is there providing a tiny peice of competition. Now you can go to this competition but you'll miss out on the killer apps for the OS with 90+% marketshare, you are basically tied into the OS because it has features you cannot find anywhere else in the market, Apple would also using its monopoly attempt to crush any small competition that could develop into something larger.

Now, lets look at the iPod and iTunes situation. If you dont like the iTunes and iPod combination, you can go to other companies which will provide almost exactly the same thing via either URGE or Napster or somesuch. There is no real killer feature for the iPod, it is merely the result of excellent marketing. Apple in this case doesn't have a monopoly because firstly it doesn't have a 90+% marketshare and secondly you can get the same features on its competitors.

Parent