EU set to charge Microsoft over ruling breach

Layback Bear said:

EU customers don't have now or the in the future a problem with selecting the chip they use or what browser they want to use. They don't need their/there government giving them options they already have.

This is to prevent monopolies. And the bold part is plain wrong. If you don't keep companies in check, they will screw you over in the future.

As the average user is too dumb to understand what "browser" and "CPU" and whatever technical is, it's easy to simply stomp the market if you have massive cash for ads and monopolize it.

As to why monopolies are bad, just think of Win 8. If Microsoft decides that you will use Metro the New UI, YOU WILL (eventually). Regardless of what you prefer. Since simply there is only Microsoft that makes Windows and most stuff runs only on Windows (there are tablets and the bulk of light stuff like internet browsing and light gaming is moving there, but I'm talking of PC users).

Now, un-monopolize markets would be cool, but not really feasible. So you have to keep everything in check before it goes beyond the point of no return.

When the EU is taking billions of dollars from you for bull droppings reason it's time to put the big foot down.

I'd agree, although for wildly different reasons than yours. Time for MS to leave the monopoly of the market with style.

Really, MS will gladly sacrifice all its employee's babies to dark forgotten gods before even thinking seriously about leaving a so gaping gargantuan hole in the market.
As the competitors that will fill that void (because someone will since it's a huge amount of cash up for grabs) will be pain in the backside in the long run (as the next time that they do silly mistakes like say Vista or Win 8 their competitors will be ready to make a smart counter move and steal their customers)

Which will mean higher quality stuff in the long run. At least for Intel and AMD or NVIDIA and ATI (still AMD but oh well) it worked well so far. Both kept their competitor in check, and there is some fun innovation going on as well as they have a good reason to do so (outdo their competitor).
For MS the drive to improve its product has been much slower and (most would say) not in the right direction for the late iteration. (mac stuff is laughed off chart and linux isn't anywhere near a contender due to its geekiness requirements and because it's not anywhere near standardized so stuff may work or not depending on luck)

Sadly, as I said, you really need much more than the peanuts that the EU can ask with lawsuits to really convince MS to do something like you ask.

The larger the market the larger amount of customers will be screaming to the governing bodies to mind their/there own business and let the customers make their/there own decisions.

Uhm, no. The bulk of the customers don't know of this and don't even care. We that understand this stuff an can rant about it are a minority.

I understand not wanting monopolies. Their/there is a very good way to stop monopolies without using the government. The other companies stepping up to the plate and produce a better product at a better price and let the customers choose. Whether it is home users or corporate users in the EU I believe they want and are fully capable of making that choice without the government. The way to beat a company as large as Microsoft is not in the courts but with better products, service and pricing. The court cost just get added to the price of the products and services. Beating a company like Microsoft in court is a (I feel good now) thing. You feel good and pay more. The choice I made to use Intel and Microsoft products was my choice alone. Ye who have so little faith in the customer of the EU. I will say it again. I have complete faith in EU customers to make the choice of products and services all by them selfs.

When the first EU set upon Microsoft for Internet Explorer, IE no longer had the market share it once did! It was not a monopoly. Firefox, Chrome later on, chipped IE's Market Share well below 50% world wide when this whole thing came up. Guess who started it? Opera. They, Opera, had a messily share of the market, barely 2%. The whole prevent monopoly thing never applied to this case as IE no longer had the market. The market was working fine without any interference from government....

- is there really a case to answer?
- MS have never made a secret of the fact that they don't mind, if you want to use an alternative to IE9, have they?

- personally I like the way that IE9 links into MS's other products..
- I wouldn't blame them for bringing this fact to the general public,
- but to suggest that they have pulled some sort of deliberate con-trick, is a bit much, IMO..