| We have heard the arguments before it is impossible to switch and impossible to change the software. It is Incompatible and expensive etc etc. Microsoft are really good at making their customers sound like a local department. I would have thought the EU would have been a bit more aware in these matters, But on the other hand they are politicians and bureaucrats. That means taking your money and giving you a hard time in return.  This time the European Commission (EC) has spent 50 Million Euros (of your money) without checking if there could be a cheaper alternative. This would probably get normal business leaders in trouble and under suspicion of corruption. Ironically the EC would probably be causing the trouble in this case. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/index_en.html From the EC website:
 |
It's astounding that every single agreement between the Commission and Microsoft since 1993 has been concluded without a public call for tender,
Of course if you only ask the one supplying you, then you will always receive a certain kind of (predictable) answer.
When you have done it for long enough you will always have this argument:
By 2003, the Commission's official justification had changed. It now claimed that any alternative software would be technically incompatible and migration unusually burdensome, so it had no choice but to carry on buying Microsoft.
I cannot claim that is was wrong for the EC to pick Microsoft. If I should speculate I would think that they could have achieved their goals as good or even better with an open solution.
And I am pretty sure that the Microsoft products would have been cheaper when facing real competition.
Who needs Greece and Ireland to overspend our money? We have the European commission!
And how did they expect to get away with it with pictures like this on their own website? Making sure that the population of the EU stay within the rules:
By their very own definition they have payed a higher price, for poorer quality with less innovation and avoided choice.