EU's Attacks on Microsoft Vista are Pathetic

The Stalwart submits: The attacks on Microsoft (NSDQ:MSFT) by EU anti-trust chief Neelie Kroes are just getting more and more ridiculous. Of course before we already had the issue whereby MSFT wasn't allowed to include its Media Player installed in European versions of Windows 2004. But now with the new Windows Vista, Ms. Kroes is arguing that Ol' Softy can't include its XPS format viewing capability (similar to PDF format for files), and most shockingly of all can't provide Vista's increased level of security.

The argument is that by including all of these features, for free, that MSFT destroys the franchises of other companies such as Adobe for PDF's (NSDQ:ADBE), Real Networks for media playback capability (NSDQ:RNWK), and Symantec for security software (NSDQ:SYMC).

But lets stop for a moment. With Adobe, does turning a word file into a picture have any value these days?. Ok, ten years ago it might have been an amazing software feature, but today, is it that fantastic? Is it value-added? Or has its value dropped to almost nothing since anyone can just make a picture format and do it? Adobe is just lucky people use their format by habit; they add no value with this feature any more. Thus in an efficient economy they shouldn't earn any profits from this either.

Adobe Systems Inc. of San Jose, Calif., has told regulators that Microsoft should be prohibited from building free competing software for reading and creating electronic documents into the operating system, called Vista, according to people familiar with the situation. ...

...Adobe is objecting to Microsoft's inclusion in Vista of its own software for creating and viewing digital snapshots of documents, known as XML Paper Specification, or XPS. XPS competes with Adobe's widely used portable document format, or PDF.

While Adobe earns money by selling its Acrobat software to create PDF documents (while giving away the software to read such documents), Microsoft will include both reading and writing software as part of Vista for no extra charge. That could erode Adobe's sales. -from WSJ

Look, turning word files into pictures shouldn't really cost that much extra these days, nor should the revenue from this service be all that much. It should just be taken for granted, any company can write the software. It's like if I had a company that was the first to make text bold, which maybe in the 1970's was a major programming feat. (Wow! I can do it to ANY font!) But then now in the 21st century I decide to attack Microsoft for making text bold in its new Word program. They are giving away my franchise for free? Yes because the minimal cost to do so represents the economic value my business adds- zero. Thus I don't deserve profits from it.

Really, should users have to download a separate program and even make a payment for turning word documents into pictures? No, not these days, its a simple feature, like making any font bold. Thus there shouldn't be much profit from such a service and if Adobe currently has so much to lose from Microsoft's XPS format, then it's for the better. Their revenue for PDF'ing files is an economic inefficiency. Their service is no longer worth squat thus shed no tears if their PDF based revenue dies. Why is the EU trying to protect Adobe's PDF monopoly?

We can make similar arguments for Real Networks' Real Player media playing software. Yes its amazing how it can play mp3's AND dvd's. Oh wait... there are tons of free software programs written by amateurs online which can perform all of Real Player's key features (playing songs, watching videos). Thus this service too is no longer worth squat either.

Instead of trying to get governments to support their now value-less software, Real Networks should be spending more time figuring out how they can once again create a product which adds value. You can't just sit on your old idea forever. Again, if MSFT can just plunk in a Media Player for free, at a minimal cost, then your service is worthless. You need to do something they can't do so easily (and which amateurs can't do easily online as well). Create a product which makes it more appealing for MSFT to buy your company out, rather than just spend a little R&D on a similar software application and drop it into Windows. If you can't pass this test, then you don't add value.

We can write a longer post applying the above argument vis a vis the EU's most absurd desire to downgrade Vista's upgraded security, I mean wasn't security the big complaint against Windows? But we are tight on time at the moment...

In conclusion, if your product has great value, it should be very tough for MSFT to just do a little R&D and plunk similar software into Windows for almost free. Look, Google Search is still killing MSFT. MySpace is way ahead of MSFT as well. The greatest threats to Microsoft these days have come from companies with completely new ideas, acting through innovation instead of lobbying for government-enforced shackles around their competition. The EU attacks on Vista are pathetic.

Comment on this article

Comments

[Mike Paladin:]

It is very common in articles written on subjects unfamiliar by their authors to present opinion supported by irrelevant and disassociated fact. For instance in your conclusion you state the greatest threats to Microsoft come from companies with completely new ideas. That is correct but the whole point is what happens when Microsoft takes those ideas and puts them in their operating system for free.

You back up your point by referring to MySpace and Google Search, two services that have nothing to do with Windows. Your point would make sense if Microsoft built video searching into the Windows desktop. Alas, they have not...yet.

You bring up security and believe your point is made by presenting the question "who doesn't want more security?" Of course everyone does. But as everyone should know, it is not built-in security for the operating system that is the issue, but separate security applications delivered with the operating system. And of course deliberately incorporating new “features” that prevent competing software to run on the operating system. Do you not know about Microsoft intended move into the security market? Wouldn’t this be a great pre-war strike? Is it fair to the companies who have put so much time and effort into developing and inventing security applications just to have Microsoft copy these ideas and bundle them into the price of their operating system?

That goes against the whole competing market and free enterprise of business. Microsoft has done tremendous things for the technology market with its products but that is not the issue. The issue is taking over existing markets by forcing people dependant on Windows to use their other products. It is easy to write an article such as yours, to throw up your hands and say they have the right, but it takes someone a little smarter to realize the impacts and consequences.

2006 Sep 22 12:12 PM

[ABR2195:]

I saw you article Mr. Paladin, and I was unimpressed with your opinion.

Microsoft does have a competing service to MySpace (MSN Spaces), and though it is not integrated into Windows, it is still a service. Windows also has Windows Live Search, with video search and this is integrated into the windows search function (with the proper updates)

I to agree with the fact that everyone wants good security features, I also agree that it is unfair that fact that microsoft can "disable" other security applications from operating on Vista. But I STRONGLY disagree with your comment that microsoft is "copying" others security applications, their not just changing the Symantic logo to a microsoft logo, their creating a completely new security software that is free with their system. All security software systems do the same thing, so aren't all security software systems copying each other? yes.

My opinion on the subjects is that if microsoft chooses to make a security software, ,document picture reading and writing software, or a media player integral into windows, they're not making any money on it, so who cares. And as far as these other companies complaining about windows taking their money, thats their problem. If they want to make money on their product, THEY NEED TO MAKE A PRODUCT WORTH PAYING FOR. if windows can just make a similer software product for free, it's not worth paying for. If they add some unique feature that windows can't copy, they'll be deserving the money they make. As far as the media player situation, windows has always had a media player.

On the subject of going against free market values... The market is all about making a product to beat out a competing product, and giving it a lower price, in microsoft case,this would be free. Multiple free media players, and security software are offered free online, you don't see them getting put down by the EU. Microsoft has the right to compete whether they charge money for their software or not

2006 Sep 22 04:45 PM

[Levar Berry:]

I don't understand the attacks either.... You're right with just about all your points.

However, I still is a problem with Microsoft's latest release. I think someone needs to explain to MS that security and obscurity are two different things. Security is not a game of dodge ball... where you just keep moving and hope not to get hit.. Thats obscurity!

But thats beside the point.... All the other software vendors today put all their eggs in the Microsoft basket only to find Microsoft has stolen their eggs. Microsoft innovation we all know comes from previous partners success that they've stolen and made their own. Nothing illegal about that.... Its dirty but NOT illegal.

My biggest hang up is WHY oh WHY do vendors continue to put themselves out there to get screwed? They should learn from Oracle, IBM, and SAP.... switch platforms! Oracle runs better on Linux and now you can't find another DB thats better. If all the applications I have to run ran on Linux.....I'll switch. Since Microsoft knows this is the truly the one reason keeping them at #1 ... THEY MUST PROTECT themselves....... you can't blame them for this!!! If they try to keep vendors from making platform independent products..... then that's illegal....and they've been sued for that in the past.

So what are you to do if you're Microsoft?!?! Just sit back and watch the ship go down? Or do something to keep it floating? If that comes at the expensive of a vendors going out of business or seriously hurt sales (ie WinZip)... then so be it.

Now.. the big twist is... Microsoft's big push two years about Linux being free and how it hurts their sales and threatens the industry....LOL. Now the shoe is the other foot and their singing a different tune. Go figure.

Final thought: Vendors should work on being completely platform independent (Win,Mac, Linux,BSD)!!! ..... can you say Sun Java

2007 Feb 03 11:10 AM