These direct costs, coupled with an opt-in requirement, could endanger free online content and services that are paid for by targeted advertising and marketing.
It's the difference between creating incentives for just 'good enough,' and incentives for investment in long-term solutions.
Fundamentally, the message in this report is that the only way to help consumers is to take technology away from them. I think that's incredibly paternalistic and misguided,
He's the one who ultimately gets to decide what's in GPL, but he can't force anyone to use the license. He can ask that there be a bonfire in the square and burn all the impure software, but whether or not people show up for the bonfire is to be determined.
Competition is getting tough, and Microsoft is evolving to become more nimble. It's doing what good companies do: evolve to meet new challenges.
It's hard to get the image out of my head of Ph.D. economists patting consumers on the head as they take away their toys.
If the court upholds the commission's case, Microsoft can't continue to innovate. And this creates a bad environment for people who depend on innovation in that platform and an environment that's not conducive to innovation in Europe.
If the commission isn't popping the champagne in response, I would be very surprised.
In the end, forced access amounts to corporate welfare and consumers will be the losers,
The Commission might now be entertaining the notion that Microsoft might have to bribe consumers to buy an inferior product.
