News Microsoft: Eu Tech Companies File Formal Complaint Against Windows "One Drive" Bundling

[hotaru251]

It's also possible to disable Onedrive and use windows without it. What I'm saying is that if Microsoft loses, there could be a domino effect and set a precedence for what OS's can and can't require or be installed.

i mean cortana being built in and defaulted on and sharign data from minors isnt enough to get it changed. this wont either.

 

[TerryLaze]

But what if it works out well and the ruling becomes a law which states "Anything non-central to the operating system of a device must allow the User to choose if it is to be installed and allowed to uninstall it at any time"? Imagine computers and phones requiring the user to consent to install crapware that's typically preloaded onto it, and Google allowing people to uninstall, not merely disable, unwanted Android apps.

Just with explorer and search engines, it's not about being installed or not, it's about having a clear and easy way for the user to choose something else, for the search engines explorer would pop up a window telling you that there are other engines as well and gave you a way to choose them.

onedrive would still be installed and the default but it would have to show you a disclaimer and choices.

And basically the whole thing is ridiculous, no single user is going to choose a paid third party provider for something that is provided "free" from the OS.
But I guess this is for the bigger clients that use more than the 5Gb free space of onedrive and have to pay.

 

[-Fran-]

Since when giving more options to users/consumers became a "bad thing"?

If you're willing to install the operating system on your own without knowing what you're doing, you're abslutely entitled to. Even if you burn your PC doing so (yeah, it won't happen anyway).

Making everything, during installation, an option is way better than having to uninstalling most of the things after. The "Enable/Disable Windows Features" option/menu has always been there. It even allows you to uninstall Internet Explorer from Windows and have always been like that (since Win95 at least). Why can't you access that during installation and prevent installing, for example, the Microsoft Store, OneDrive, Windows Media Player, Edge, Internet Explorer, Cortana and so on? If you know what you're doing it's more power/control to users.

This is not just about Microsoft trying to shove their stuff down your throat, but also about how they're basically ignoring user's preferences altogether.

Regards.

 

[Endymio]

Since when giving more options to users/consumers became a "bad thing"?

Easy answer. When the development resources diverted to enabling those options results in a poorer overall product. An OS with options to install 100 different features results in 2^100 different possibile configurations -- far more than can ever be tested. Also, Microsoft is attempting to create an environment in which an OS can essentially assume the existence of cloud storage, and act accordingly.

I remember the same objections you raise now being brought up when Microsoft first began forcing network stacks and graphical UIs on users. "I don't need or want the Internet; why should I be forced to have it", or "this graphic shell uses way more memory than a command prompt, stop forcing it on me!". Eventually, people got on board with the concept, and we're all better off for it. If you want ultimate flexibility, use Linux rather than Windows. And deal with the installation and configuration headeaches therein.

 

[TerryLaze]

Easy answer. When the development resources diverted to enabling those options results in a poorer overall product. An OS with options to install 100 different features results in 2^100 different possibile configurations -- far more than can ever be tested. Also, Microsoft is attempting to create an environment in which an OS can essentially assume the existence of cloud storage, and act accordingly.

That's not the issue, MS has to support your windows anyway even if you have disabled some components.

But imagine, the END USER will have to make 100 decisions, UNSKIPPABLE decisions, to "install" (first boot) the OS. Nobody would want to use that, it would be a huge crapstorm of bad press.

You can already, for years now since XP, use tools like NTlite to remove or add pretty much anything to your windows image, if there where to be a law like that then that would be the way that MS would go, take a survey on the download page and get a custom image to download.

 

[TommyTwoTone66]

No this will not ripple down to IOS and Android because mobile devices are not considered in the same way as desktop PCs and Laptops, and neither Apple nor Google have a monopoly on mobile OS like MS does with Windows.

I suspect we will get a tickbox during install asking if you want to install OneDrive, which I suppose is more convenient than what we do now, which is uninstall it the moment an OS install is completed, along with Solitaire collection and Groove Music.

For casual / pleb users it will be a good thing since they won’t be railroaded into using OneDrive.

 

[Endymio]

No this will not ripple down to IOS and Android because mobile devices are not considered in the same way as desktop PCs and Laptops

Why not? Windows runs on mobile devices, and both Android and Apple's iOS began life as desktop OS's, modified to be less resource-intensive. The distinction between desktop, laptop, tablet, and smart phone is diminishing daily, and, from the perspective of the duties an OS performs, is entirely artificial. The idea that these device categories don't compete to some degree is nonsensical. If your smartphone can fill the roles you require from a tablet, you don't buy a tablet, and if your tablet can fill the roles you require from a desktop, you don't buy a desktop.

This line of reasoning is quite similar to the EU's pretzel logic in a past antitrust case against Microsoft. Their attempts to sue were foiled when they found Microsoft did not have a majority share of the server market, nor even of the artificially-created "application server" market. So they created an even-more artificial designation, the "workgroup application server market", to allow them to proceed with legal action.

 

[TommyTwoTone66]

Why not? Windows runs on mobile devices, and both Android and Apple's iOS began life as desktop OS's, modified to be less resource-intensive. The distinction between desktop, laptop, tablet, and smart phone is diminishing daily

Irrelevant. Again, neither IOS nor Android has a monopoly so they cannot be forced to remove features under antitrust law.

Microsoft does have a monopoly on desktop PCs, so it can be forced to change its product via antitrust laws.

 

[-Fran-]

Easy answer. When the development resources diverted to enabling those options results in a poorer overall product. An OS with options to install 100 different features results in 2^100 different possibile configurations -- far more than can ever be tested. Also, Microsoft is attempting to create an environment in which an OS can essentially assume the existence of cloud storage, and act accordingly.

I remember the same objections you raise now being brought up when Microsoft first began forcing network stacks and graphical UIs on users. "I don't need or want the Internet; why should I be forced to have it", or "this graphic shell uses way more memory than a command prompt, stop forcing it on me!". Eventually, people got on board with the concept, and we're all better off for it. If you want ultimate flexibility, use Linux rather than Windows. And deal with the installation and configuration headeaches therein.

LOL, no.

The level of support is the same with or without those features. This is a huge straw man argument. Microsoft has to account for the development as you can still uninstall those ANYWAY.

So, no. Your argument is invalid. Giving people options has nothing (or very little) to do with the complexity of the support. It has little to do with the development even.

Regards.

 

[Endymio]

Irrelevant. Again, neither IOS nor Android has a monopoly...Microsoft does have a monopoly on desktop PCs

Wrong on one point, and you missed the forest entirely on the other. Android indeed has a monopoly on smartphone OSs (86% market share). And while Microsoft has a similar monopoly on the "desktop OS" market, the point you missed is that these terms are essentially artificial, and don't represent the market reality that desktops, laptops, smartphones, and tablets all compete to some degree with each other.

 

[TommyTwoTone66]

Wrong on one point, and you missed the forest entirely on the other. Android indeed has a monopoly on smartphone OSs (86% market share). And while Microsoft has a similar monopoly on the "desktop OS" market, the point you missed is that these terms are essentially artificial, and don't represent the market reality that desktops, laptops, smartphones, and tablets all compete to some degree with each other.

Incorrect. A desktop OS can be installed on a desktop PC. When I say desktop PC I also include laptops. The distinction is that smart phones and tablets are limited to the OS they were designed for. On a PC you could install Linux or MacOS or OS/2 etc. On your Samsung Galaxy you can only install Android.

86% market share is not a monopoly, even if that figure were true. In the EU, where this suit originated, it is much closer to 60/40 Android / IOS. So certainly not a monopoly. In the US it is 60% iOS and 40% Android, and only the EU and US have any meaningful antitrust laws.

 

[-Fran-]

Incorrect. A desktop OS can be installed on a desktop PC. When I say desktop PC I also include laptops. The distinction is that smart phones and tablets are limited to the OS they were designed for. On a PC you could install Linux or MacOS or OS/2 etc. On your Samsung Galaxy you can only install Android.

86% market share is not a monopoly, even if that figure were true. In the EU, where this suit originated, it is much closer to 60/40 Android / IOS. So certainly not a monopoly. In the US it is 60% iOS and 40% Android, and only the EU and US have any meaningful antitrust laws.

It also helps that Google gives the OS to the OEMs so they modify it as they want; not quite open source, but customizable enough to not be a concern for a Monopoly. Microsoft controls Windows and the OEMs can't modify it, period.

Regards.

 

[TommyTwoTone66]

It also helps that Google gives the OS to the OEMs so they modify it as they want; not quite open source, but customizable enough to not be a concern for a Monopoly. Microsoft controls Windows and the OEMs can't modify it, period.

Regards.

Well… they can to an extent. Dell desktops do come with all kinds of junk “slipstreamed” into the OS, and up until windows 10 “OEM” installs of Windows were quite popular. But you’re right the changes they were able to make on those OEM installs were extremely limited. Not like the OEM installs of Android which can feel like an entirely different OS.

 

[Endymio]

86% market share is not a monopoly...In the EU, where this suit originated, it is much closer to 60/40 Android / IOS. So certainly not a monopoly.

You are unaware of monopoly law. In the US, the legal threshold for monopoly power is generally around 70%, though cases have been brought with as little as 51% share. In the EU, the threshold is 40%, and in the UK it is 25%.

Furthermore, the actual figure for Europe is 63% Android, more than sufficient to meet the monopoly threshold test.

The distinction is that smart phones and tablets are limited to the OS they were designed for....On your Samsung Galaxy you can only install Android.

A Samsung Galaxy can run any OS designed for that device. And Adroid now runs not only phones, but tablets, smart watches, Smart TVs and automaker's media centers. But all this is irrelevant. The legal test for market share depends on how much two products compete with each other, not whether they interoperate or not.

 

[TommyTwoTone66]

You are unaware of monopoly law. In the US, the legal threshold for monopoly power is generally around 70%, though cases have been brought with as little as 51% share. In the EU, the threshold is 40%, and in the UK it is 25%.

Furthermore, the actual figure for Europe is 63% Android, more than sufficient to meet the monopoly threshold test.

A Samsung Galaxy can run any OS designed for that device. And Adroid now runs not only phones, but tablets, smart watches, Smart TVs and automaker's media centers. But all this is irrelevant. The legal test for market share depends on how much two products compete with each other, not whether they interoperate or not.

in a market with only two major players, a threshold that low is ridiculous. It scales with the number of competitors, and with only one you’d have to be at least 95%, like Microsoft were in the only actual enforcement of these laws in modern times.

 

[Endymio]

in a market with only two major players, a threshold that low is ridiculous.

Indeed. Most antitrust laws are ridiculous, when examined under a strong light. Take pricing laws, for instance. Charge more than your competitors, and you're gouging. Charge less, and you're dumping. Charge exactly what they do, and you're colluding.

It scales with the number of competitors, and with only one you’d have to be at least 95%

Are you speaking in hypothetical terms of how you believe things should be? Because the law recognizes no such scaling.

 

[-Fran-]

Ya'll need to read this...

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/com...ws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

Other parts of the world have their own set of rules, obviously, that can vary a lot in interpretation from the US "guidelines".

Regards,