Are the EU Rules for Microsoft Reasonable?

[luchog]

I worked at Microsoft as a software developer for a year. (1/2007-1/2008, my contract ended, but I intend to work there again. It's a great place to make software.)

There were many occasions where mythical "secret API documentation" would have made my job much easier.

It doesn't freaking exist.

Actually it does. I've worked at Micorosft as well, longer than you have. And I've known a huge number of developers, some of whom have been there upwards of a decade. The hidden API calls exist. Microsoft even admitted to their existence in the DOJ antitrust proceedings, although they preferred to use the terms "undocumented" or "poorly documented", and attempted to blame the API writers for being too lazy with their documentation.

They're not widely published inside the company; but are part of what is known as Microsoft's "oral history" or "oral culture", that is, Microsoft's tendency to keep some of it's secrets undocumented and only available by word-of-mouth. They're passed around by senior developers and program managers; and kept strictly internal. They do not share that information with contractors unless absolutely necessary.

 

[Gazpacho]

Splitting hairs. Another example? the AARD code.

"APIs" means APIs, not every last bit of code in Windows, and certainly not "anything anyone has objected to in Microsoft software ever."

Actually it does. I've worked at Micorosft as well, longer than you have. And I've known a huge number of developers, some of whom have been there upwards of a decade. The hidden API calls exist. Microsoft even admitted to their existence in the DOJ antitrust proceedings, although they preferred to use the terms "undocumented" or "poorly documented", and attempted to blame the API writers for being too lazy with their documentation.

You're talking about interfaces for Microsoft application products into Windows? not calls from programs that ship in Windows, not calls into the NT kernel?

As a Microsoft employee, you presumably know that all released application code is scanned for calls into undocumented APIs, and the output is logged with the compliance committe, and any undocumented calls required to be resolved, so Microsoft doesn't have to keep fighting off this accusation.

Excuse my skepticism, but there are Microsoft developers who are probably better placed than me or you (Raymond and Larry Osterman) who have already written extensively on the matter. Since Microsoft's acknowledgement is public record, why don't you point me to it?

"Mythical secret API" -> "in people's heads."

For anyone to suggest that Microsoft doesn't seek to share its API knowledge outside the company, in view of all the books written by people at Microsoft, and all the issues of MSDN magazine, and all the articles and sample code on MSDN, and the newsgroups and forums where people can ask questions and get answers from Microsoft employees, and most recently the various blogs and recorded interviews... really, who do you think you're kidding?

I find it very sad that some people are so determined to find fault in everything Microsoft does that when it puts out something undeniably right and good, they accuse Microsoft of what amounts to witchcraft.

 

[Gazpacho]

Of course, the fact that they're pushing their own built-in security software has nothing to do with it, I'm sure.

Yeah, that would explain why they've briefed the affected product vendors in advance and told them that they have to put out an update.

 

[cyborg]

For anyone to suggest that Microsoft doesn't seek to share its API knowledge outside the company

Missing the point. You're frothing at the mouth too much.

 

[Gazpacho]

Missing the point.

This point?

The problem is that it isn't shared. I.e. it's in the heads of the various teams and they're not encouraged to make it widely available.

Sorry, this claim just doesn't match up with reality.

 

[tsg]

I worked at Microsoft as a software developer for a year. (1/2007-1/2008, my contract ended, but I intend to work there again. It's a great place to make software.)

There were many occasions where mythical "secret API documentation" would have made my job much easier.

It doesn't freaking exist.

And I'm just supposed to take your word for it, am I?

I'm sorry, it's going to take a whole lot more than that to convince me the company that wrote the operating system isn't sharing that information with its own applications developers especially if it would help them in the applications marketplace, doubly especially when it's known said company has a history of breaking the rules.

 

[Father Dagon]

Record EU Fine for Microsoft

I know there is already a thread about this. I want to have a more reasoned discussion. I completely agree that Microsoft broke the rules and they are being fined because of it. My real question is this:

Should dominating the market require you to do things to help your competitors?

As I understand it, the EU is saying that Microsoft must provide information about its OS so that rival companies can develop software that directly competes with Microsoft software. It seems very weird to me to force a private company to do that. If they didn't dominate the PC OS market, this would be seen as completely unreasonable.

I'm trying to think of another industry where this kind of thing has happened and I really can't. I would be interested in other examples.

Totally idiotic! No one humiliates successfull gaming companies with similar claims. And yet there are trends and competition in gaming....

 

[cyborg]

If they didn't dominate the PC OS market, this would be seen as completely unreasonable.

DUH!

That is kinda the point.

Sometimes I wonder.

Totally idiotic! No one humiliates successfull gaming companies with similar claims. And yet there are trends and competition in gaming....

Eh?

 

[Father Dagon]

I guess that you know that there's trends in the gaming industry. One year is RPGs the talk of the town, another FPS etc...

And what is a computer game when all is said and done? A multitude of code lines? No. Hardware? Nope. A computer game is an experience. And that is all you really need to know about it. So with only the information that I gets by playing StarCraft, I can make a RTS-game that competes with StarCraft.

 

[cyborg]

So with only the information that I gets by playing StarCraft, I can make a RTS-game that competes with StarCraft.

Sure.

Now all you need is the code, graphics and levels... that's the easy part right?

I still don't get what your thrust is.

 

[Jekyll]

And I'm just supposed to take your word for it, am I?

I would. I can well believe that someone on a short term contract at microsoft didn't hear any open secrets.

On the other hand, the undocumented APIs are well known, just google for them, and you can find explicit descriptions of various hooks that are missing from the documentation. Go here for a random example.

 

[Father Dagon]

Sure.

Now all you need is the code, graphics and levels... that's the easy part right?

I still don't get what your thrust is.

My point is that there's game after game that fails miserably. Also a lots of games that are only mediocre. But you never hears about failing gaming companies that demands that the successfull companies submits their trade secrets.

 

[Jekyll]

My point is that there's game after game that fails miserably. Also a lots of games that are only mediocre. But you never hears about failing gaming companies that demands that the successfull companies submits their trade secrets.

That's because you don't understand what's going on here.

Suppose Blizzard dominated the computer game industry and then started making joysticks, they could introduce subtle inconsistencies that prevent other joysticks being used, or makes them less responsive.

If they then refused to reveal the details of how to interface a working joystick, they would be abusing their existing monopoly in the way microsoft has done.

It's not enough to just dominate a market, you have to do something bad with this domination before people will take sanctions against you.

 

[Father Dagon]

That's because you don't understand what's going on here.

Suppose Blizzard dominated the computer game industry and then started making joysticks, they could introduce subtle inconsistencies that prevent other joysticks being used, or makes them less responsive.

If they then refused to reveal the details of how to interface a working joystick, they would be abusing their existing monopoly in the way microsoft has done.

It's not enough to just dominate a market, you have to do something bad with this domination before people will take sanctions against you.

Then the gamers would either come up with counter-patches or abandon Blizzard without any remorse. Beacuse hardware and software isn't the same thing. The successfull hardware manufacturers caters to a wide audience as possible.

 

[cyborg]

Then the gamers would either come up with counter-patches or abandon Blizzard without any remorse.

Do you think you could abandon Microsoft without any remorse?

Do you think it's a simple matter to come up with counter-patches?

Do you think it's always legal to come up with such counter-patches?

I think you fail to appreciate that there are technical and legal differences.

Installing a Blizzard game does not inherently affect my ability to play a Bullfrog game.

If it did you'd agree there'd be a problem yes?

The successfull hardware manufacturers caters to a wide audience as possible.

That statement does not reflect reality.

 

[Father Dagon]

Do you think you could abandon Microsoft without any remorse?

Given enough maltreatment, yes. But then Windows is an OS, not a specific program. I want and expect more of the same, and Microsoft delivers it.

Do you think it's a simple matter to come up with counter-patches?

Yes, they cracked the DRM, didn't they?

Do you think it's always legal to come up with such counter-patches?

Catch me, if you can.

I think you fail to appreciate that there are technical and legal differences.

I do. There's nothing like FUD.

Installing a Blizzard game does not inherently affect my ability to play a Bullfrog game.

If it did you'd agree there'd be a problem yes?

Yes, but some game manufacturers are actually complete jackasses that thinks that everything revolves around their game. Shall we fine them for bad advertising as well?

That statement does not reflect reality.

I was refering to computer hardware for the general user. Of course there's always hardware that are more specialized (e.g. fight rudder controls), but on general there's a balance between the elitist and the available that are to be maintained.

 

[cyborg]

Yes, they cracked the DRM, didn't they?

Yes, but do you think it's simple?

Do you think you could do it?

Catch me, if you can.

That's the general thrust of things.

Yes, but some game manufacturers are actually complete jackasses that thinks that everything revolves around their game. Shall we fine them for bad advertising as well?

Eh?

I was refering to computer hardware for the general user.

You're still wrong. Hardware manufacturer's seek to maximise profit - like any other for-profit organisation. Making a product as widely usable as possible is not necessarily "the way" that goal is achieved.

 

[Father Dagon]

Yes, but do you think it's simple?

Do you think you could do it?

No. But the lowest denominator isn't the answer. With "do you tink you could do it" you can kill any discussion. Say that there's a demand for a patch, then someone will make it. Not all programmers are in it for the cash, but for the glory.

That's the general thrust of things.

If I release that patch trough some darkweb or anonymous forum, Microsoft will only get rid of it if they destroy the internet AND destroy all computers.

Eh?

Pick three random computer game magazines. Write down the games with the best and the worst reviews. Then check out their advertising. The difference between the ads of the good games and the bad games should be minimal. Every game is released as if it was the center of the universe. And of course there is always someone who falls for the bad games ads and is some $60 poorer and a lots of wisdom richer. Objectively spoken, the ads of the bad games destroys the competition, as they get more customers than they should if was no ads, only reviews. But then, customers are getting more and more concious.

You're still wrong. Hardware manufacturer's seek to maximise profit - like any other for-profit organisation. Making a product as widely usable as possible is not necessarily "the way" that goal is achieved.

As widley usable regarding the potential market. It doesn't matter if you make joysticks or drill heads for the oil industry.

 

[cyborg]

No. But the lowest denominator isn't the answer. With "do you tink you could do it" you can kill any discussion.

Most people could smash a skull with a rock. Not everyone can hack a technical system.

If I release that patch trough some darkweb or anonymous forum, Microsoft will only get rid of it if they destroy the internet AND destroy all computers.

Which is why there's a constant arms race. The end result of which is that using computer's legitimately becomes more and more and more painful.

Is that what you want?

Pick three random computer game magazines. Write down the games with the best and the worst reviews. Then check out their advertising. The difference between the ads of the good games and the bad games should be minimal. Every game is released as if it was the center of the universe. And of course there is always someone who falls for the bad games ads and is some $60 poorer and a lots of wisdom richer. Objectively spoken, the ads of the bad games destroys the competition, as they get more customers than they should if was no ads, only reviews. But then, customers are getting more and more concious.

Again, Eh? This appears to be a completely different discussion.

As widley usable regarding the potential market. It doesn't matter if you make joysticks or drill heads for the oil industry.

Wrong. Just goddamn wrong.

If it costs XXX% amount to make a drill head for x$ return it's not going to happen.

It's called "return on investment."

 

[WildCat]

That is, Microsoft's bundling of the Media Player with Windows provided them with an unfair advantage over Real,

A lump of feces from a dog under severe intestinal distress has an unfair advantage over Real.