Microsoft have argued that if competitors are allowed to complain every time they make a change to Windows (a change that would break a competitor's software), then Microsoft's competitors will be able to abuse this 'power' and block progress as well as put Microsoft at a disadvantage.
This has long been an argument of blind Microsoft fanboys who think that butter wouldn't melt in Bill's mouth. They argue that Microsoft is a business like any other and should not be expected to go out of its way to help those who are in direct competition.
Are these people really as thick as their point of view would suggest, or are they simply incapable of seeing the whole picture?
Nobody is asking Microsoft to go out of its way to help competitors and their products. In fact, what I think Microsoft's competitors are asking as for Microsoft to <B>not</B> go out of its way to find ways of breaking their products.
If Microsoft want to make Windows better in a way that may possibly break some software, then that is ultimately up to Microsoft. However, the truth is that Microsoft is deliberately breaking other people's software, without adding anything to justify the change that has ensued, and refuses to tell the software maker how to work around it.
What has this to do with Symbian? Imagine, people are looking for a smartphone. They won't want Microsoft's smartphone because it's crap, but when they hear that the only phone that connects to a PC without crashing is a Microsoft Smartphone, then where will they go (though I accept the argument that Microsoft is yet to release any mobile device that can connect to a PC without crashing)?
Microsoft's sin is a sin of comission, not omission.
.
.
At the moment I'm using Linux for about 1 year now ... 
)