Talk:Microsoft threatens European Vista release delays due EC monopoly regulations

NPOV problems

The title implies Microsoft is going to blame the EC for something Microsoft is doing. This assumes that Microsoft is wrong, and speculates that they are going to lie about. In the body, Microsoft's position is labeled 'spin', while the EC's position is not. TRWBW 23:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is honestly the most biased article I've ever seen. &mdash in another piece of spin.... Bawolff ☺☻ 04:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the facts

The European Commission is concerned that, with Vista, Microsoft may repeat the offences of bundling and non-disclosure of interfaces for which the EC successfully prosecuted Microsoft over the past year. The European Commission has not said anything about requiring Microsoft to remove security features.

It is also the case that Microsoft has been forced to delay the release of Vista several times, for internal development reasons. Gartner is currently warning customers that Microsoft is unlikely to achieve the currently scheduled delivery date. Observer 07:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Spin

Every IT vendor has a PR department whose job is spin. I don't think it unreasonable to describe as 'spin' Microsoft's suggestion that security features are at risk when the EC has made no such threat, and Microsoft's subtle shifting of blame, for delays in the roll-out of Vista, from its own development problems to an external factor such as the EC.

Now that WinFS is no longer part of Vista, Microsoft faces an uphill task to persuade business and consumers that Vista is worth the price -- not just for the software, but also for the graphics hardware needed to exploit some of Vista's new features. It seems to me that Microsoft has spun the EC story in order to tell the world about Vista's security features when, as I said, the EC has not mentioned them.

I take it our job as Wikinews writers is not just to summarise stories but also to try to work out what's going on behind the stories. Sorry, I'm very new to all this. I don't mind dropping the entire article. Observer 07:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The EC also has a PR department. What they do could also be considered spin. Whether one is 'spinning' more than the other is a matter of a opinion. TRWBW 10:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What is an NPOV when reporting the activities of a convicted corporation?

One final question: Let's not forget that, in these and related matters, Microsoft is the convicted monopolist, in both the European and US courts. The EC is the instrument of justice. Where should Wikinews' NPOV lie when reporting such news? If we had a news story about a child and a convicted child sex attacker, it would be unusual not to mention in the article that the person was a convicted child sex attacker, because that has a bearing on their expected behaviour. When a news story is about organisations rather than people, should such expectations of repeat behaviour be dropped? Observer 08:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be relevant to refer to the ongoing dispute between them as long as its done in an unbiased manner. Just hold your nose and present both sides, and let the reader decide for themselves whether Microsoft is being honest. TRWBW 10:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No, "spin" was not NPOV as used. I've fixed it, but I'll try to work the word spin back in, as NPOV this time. Nyarlathotep 10:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

okay, "spin" is a matter of opinion, but everyone knows the EC ain't going to make Microsoft take out the default firewall, at the very worst the EC will just make them include a check box for OEM installs which allows the OEM to install a third party option, and even that much seems unlikely. So here we have Microsoft making a "straw man" argument, and that is easy to explain without using the pejorative word spin. Nyarlathotep 11:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"everyone knows" isn't a citable source. If you can find a source, you can build the section around it. Something like 'A spokesman for Industry Association X stated his organisation's belief that the EC back down'. TRWBW 11:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the sentence 'IT commentators state'. Which 'IT commentators'? There was no mention of this in the sources. Also, are there any 'IT commentators' who think the other way? TRWBW 11:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

weasel words

'many find it extremely unlikely' is weasely. How do we know that many people think this? Are these individuals, organizations, industry figures who think this? Who are they and what exactly did they say, when did they say it, who reported it? Are there 'many who find it possible'? TRWBW 11:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The section you deleted is a reference to the slashdot discussion which I suspect you didn't bother to read. Nyarlathotep 05:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Some facts

Wouldn't the infos from The possibility of a Vista delay...(somewhere middle to bottom) onwards in this source have lent themselves as some good hard facts, that at the same time pretty clearly say Microsoft might be spinning :). In summary, before the release of Win98 the US judicary was setting up a case against microsoft, which then also said this might slow release. Well, too late now I guess. Regards Sean Heron 14:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to use the word spin which I find vague and derogatory, but Microsoft was quite objectively making a strawman argument against other EU monopoly regulations since the EU gave no indication that it would act on the firewall issue. Nyarlathotep 15:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)