EU vs Microsoft

[Gfted1]

EU: browser-free Windows gives no real choice

 

Jun 12, 10:23 AM (ET)

 

By AOIFE WHITE

 

BRUSSELS (AP) - European Union regulators said Microsoft Corp. was offering less choice, not more, by vowing to sell the next version of Windows without any Web browsers at all.

 

Microsoft said Thursday that it would remove its Internet Explorer browser - and not include any alternatives - in the Windows 7 software it will sell from Oct. 22 in Europe to soothe EU antitrust concerns.

 

The company is trying to avoid new EU fines, on top of a previous euro1.7 billion fine, after being earlier charged with unfairly using its operating system monopoly to squeeze into other software markets.

 

But the European Commission said it preferred to see consumers offered a choice of browser, "not that Windows would be supplied without a browser at all."

 

"Rather than more choice, Microsoft seems to have chosen to provide less," it said in a statement late Thursday.

 

The EU will soon decide whether Microsoft had violated EU antitrust law since 1996 by tying the browser to its ubiquitous Windows operating system which is installed on most of the world's desktop computers.

 

A "must carry" option that would offer several browsers was a better option, the EU executive suggested, because "consumers should be provided with a genuine choice of browsers" on the software that manufacturers install on computers.

 

It said Microsoft's solution would give no choice to the 5 percent of consumers who buy Windows software in a stand-alone pack, as opposed to pre-installed on a computer.

 

Microsoft claims the opposite, saying consumers would be free to choose whether or not to install Internet Explorer on Windows 7 and "will also be free, as they are today, to install other Web browsers." It said it will give PC users who want the browser a way to obtain it.

 

But regulators were more positive about the larger market - which sells software to computer makers - saying Microsoft's decision meant manufacturers such as Dell could choose to install Internet Explorer or one or more other browsers.

 

The European Commission said it would have to weigh up whether this would actually create genuine consumer choice.

 

It warned that it would still have to look at "the long standing nature of Microsoft's conduct" and whether the removal of Internet Explorer "could be negated by other actions by Microsoft" - such as prompts in the system urging users to install the browser.

 

The EU charged Microsoft with monopoly abuse in January, following a complaint from Norway's mobile Internet browser maker Opera Software ASA, which said Microsoft was unfairly using its power as the dominant supplier of operating system software to squeeze out competitors.

 

Opera lawyer Thomas Vinje said the decision to strip out Internet Explorer was "an acknowledgment from Microsoft that it has been breaking the law."

 

He said Opera would keep asking the EU to press for a "ballot screen" for new users worldwide to choose one or several browsers when they install Windows because it was the only way to restore competition.

 

Opera's chief technology officer Hakon Wium Lie also claimed Microsoft has held back other browsers and innovation on the Internet by purposefully ignoring Web standards since Web sites are often designed for the world's most used browser - Internet Explorer - and sometimes cannot be viewed on rival browsers.

 

Microsoft says it is fully compliant with Web standards.

 

Mozilla Corp., which makes the Firefox browser, and Google Inc. have signed on as third parties against Microsoft in the case.

 

Microsoft's browser is the most widely used worldwide, but Firefox is gaining in popularity and Google, the top Web search provider, has released its own Web browser, Chrome.

 

 

I would like to gauge opinions on this. I suspect most of you will agree because Microsoft eats babies but to me this sounds totally ridiculous. Do they actually expect a company to provide their competetors product on their software? Seriously? Why, because nobody should have to actually d/l it themselves? Opera and Firefox should be given a free ride on Microsofts dime? What?

[ShadySands]

I think it's stupid to ask Microsoft to provide the software of their rivals and I don't see a problem with them including IE as long as it is optional and can be removed. Honestly I don't think many people would be able to even get another browser without first having one to go to a website and download it.

[Gorgon]

This thing with the browsers seems kinda pointless, I can't remember the last time I used IE for anything. It's much worse that microsoft has a stranglehold on development to the point that there is comparatively little software developed for other platforms, but I guess that can't really be helped.

[Gorgon]

Although, what are you going to use to download Firefox or Chrome on a fresh installation. A bit problematic that.

[Humodour]

Opera and Firefox should be given a free ride on Microsofts dime? What?

 

You mean like the free ride Microsoft got by violating anti-trust laws for years to the detriment of competing products? You wouldn't let thief keep the stolen diamonds because because they suddenly stopped robbing banks.

 

Although, what are you going to use to download Firefox or Chrome on a fresh installation. A bit problematic that.

 

A mini package manager? Windows Update? You can easily download Firefox on Ubuntu without having any internet browser. It's not exactly hard to figure out.

[Deraldin]

Opera and Firefox should be given a free ride on Microsofts dime? What?

 

You mean like the free ride Microsoft got by violating anti-trust laws for years to the detriment of competing products? You wouldn't let thief keep the stolen diamonds because because they suddenly stopped robbing banks.

 

Although, what are you going to use to download Firefox or Chrome on a fresh installation. A bit problematic that.

 

A mini package manager? Windows Update? You can easily download Firefox on Ubuntu without having any internet browser. It's not exactly hard to figure out.

 

At this point in the game, what advantage does a larger market share offer to people with competing browsers?

[Humodour]

Opera and Firefox should be given a free ride on Microsofts dime? What?

 

You mean like the free ride Microsoft got by violating anti-trust laws for years to the detriment of competing products? You wouldn't let thief keep the stolen diamonds because because they suddenly stopped robbing banks.

 

Although, what are you going to use to download Firefox or Chrome on a fresh installation. A bit problematic that.

 

A mini package manager? Windows Update? You can easily download Firefox on Ubuntu without having any internet browser. It's not exactly hard to figure out.

 

At this point in the game, what advantage does a larger market share offer to people with competing browsers?

 

I should think this is obvious, given the array of features (especially Javascript support and standards compliance) IE lacks or has poor support for. Folks like Google and other web app/cloud vendors (and just web developers in general) constantly lament IE's market dominance for this reason.

 

Also, I think you're under the assumption that all browsers are free these days. You're wrong. Not only is that not true, but even the free browsers have a business model embedded in their product (including Microsoft, where their business is to keep IE simple in order to slow or prevent cloud applications stealing customers from their core products such as Exchange or Office - Google's is exactly the opposite with Chrome, and Firefox's is searchbar revenue to fund future development... the business there being ideological).

[Deraldin]

I should think this is obvious, given the array of features (especially Javascript support and standards compliance) IE lacks or has poor support for. Folks like Google and other web app/cloud vendors (and just web developers in general) constantly lament IE's market dominance for this reason.

 

Also, I think you're under the assumption that all browsers are free these days. You're wrong. Not only is that not true, but even the free browsers have a business model embedded in their product (including Microsoft, where their business is to keep IE simple in order to slow or prevent cloud applications stealing customers from their core products such as Exchange or Office - Google's is exactly the opposite with Chrome, and Firefox's is searchbar revenue to fund future development... the business there being ideological).

It might be obvious to you, but as someone who doesn't really follow all the talk about browsers it's not something that really comes to mind and I'd argue that it's not an obvious conclusion to the vast majority of users. Software is not my area of interest.

 

Outside of the mobile space, what browsers are there that are still paid for? Under what circumstances would you pay for a browser rather than use one of the many free alternatives? As I said, this is not something that I really think about. As a home user, I just pick up the free browsers that has the features that I want and once it's installed, I very rarely think about what I'm using or why.

[213374U]

You mean like the free ride Microsoft got by violating anti-trust laws for years to the detriment of competing products? You wouldn't let thief keep the stolen diamonds because because they suddenly stopped robbing banks.

Yes, that's why MS was forced to pay multi-billion fines every time it was proven in court that they had been eating babies.

 

Seriously, it's probably not a good thing that MS has such a large hold of the OS market, but that's free market for ya. You can't force a brand to advertise its competitors in their own product. What's next, forcing MS to bundle a copy of OpenOffice with their W7 packages? How about a Linux partition? What the crap?

 

And in the end, it's just more trouble for the end user, because they have to remove all the trash that would be installed by law, because companies "cannot compete on equal footing" - and they sure as hell won't bother if this idiocy keeps escalating. It's bad enough having to clean up all the garbage and idiot-proof configurations new PCs come with.

 

As for the article, what's there to say. Eurocommies strike again!

[Humodour]

I should think this is obvious, given the array of features (especially Javascript support and standards compliance) IE lacks or has poor support for. Folks like Google and other web app/cloud vendors (and just web developers in general) constantly lament IE's market dominance for this reason.

 

Also, I think you're under the assumption that all browsers are free these days. You're wrong. Not only is that not true, but even the free browsers have a business model embedded in their product (including Microsoft, where their business is to keep IE simple in order to slow or prevent cloud applications stealing customers from their core products such as Exchange or Office - Google's is exactly the opposite with Chrome, and Firefox's is searchbar revenue to fund future development... the business there being ideological).

It might be obvious to you, but as someone who doesn't really follow all the talk about browsers it's not something that really comes to mind and I'd argue that it's not an obvious conclusion to the vast majority of users. Software is not my area of interest.

 

Sorry, I guess I shouldn't assume everyone knows the ins and outs of browsers and web development. My bad.

 

Outside of the mobile space, what browsers are there that are still paid for?

 

No clue. I hear about them every now and then, though admittedly I haven't for about a year now. It may be there aren't any anymore.

 

Under what circumstances would you pay for a browser rather than use one of the many free alternatives?

 

Under what circumstances would you pay for a word processor rather than use one of the free alternatives? There are reasons, even if the biggest one is simply "my company forces me to" or something. I imagine if there are still any non-free adopters, it's companies.

 

As I said, this is not something that I really think about. As a home user, I just pick up the free browsers that has the features that I want and once it's installed, I very rarely think about what I'm using or why.

 

That's fine, but as I said, the business models of most browsers revolve around something other than upfront fees (yet is are very solid and conspicuous business models nonetheless), which is a point I notice you've avoided.

[Deraldin]

As I said, this is not something that I really think about. As a home user, I just pick up the free browsers that has the features that I want and once it's installed, I very rarely think about what I'm using or why.

 

That's fine, but as I said, the business models of most browsers revolve around something other than upfront fees (yet is are very solid and conspicuous business models nonetheless), which is a point I notice you've avoided.

 

It was less about avoiding the point than it was not know how to respond to it.

[alanschu]

First I think this is silly, because as far as I know all major browsers are free to download.

 

 

However, this is the EU getting exactly what they asked for. They didn't want Microsoft to unfairly add their web browser into the marketplace, and Microsoft has complied.

 

 

 

 

As someone that chooses to never use Internet Explorer, I find it absurd that Internet Explorer shipping with Windows OS still causes an issue at all. I like that my Windows XP came with IE. It made it really easy for me to download Firefox.

 

 

I think it's just convenient to hate on Microsoft, and honestly, because they shipped their IE with Windows in the past, we as consumers get the luxury of free web browsers today (remember when Netscape used to cost money!?)

[Gorgon]

We bow before your knowledge of browser business models. Happy?

[alanschu]

That's fine, but as I said, the business models of most browsers revolve around something other than upfront fees (yet is are very solid and conspicuous business models nonetheless), which is a point I notice you've avoided.

 

Such as?

[Volourn]

This is all about power. EU wants to flex their muscles, and nobody likes anyone being successful hence whey MS is such an easy target because of how successful theya re. It's not their fault their 'competitors' are pathetic losers who need Big Pappa Gov't to come in, and steal MS's money. Many so claled anti trust laws are designed simply to punish the successful. Completely, and utterly disgusting as it hurts legitimate anti trust laws. Tsk, tsk.

[Magister Lajciak]

Sigh, thanks European Commission! Now I will have the inconvenience of not having an OS come with a browser, even though people in all other regions of the world will have it bundled in, yet still have the choice of downloading other browsers should they choose to do so.

 

Needless to say, from my point of views as a consumer, I think this decision is outright moronic. Perhaps instead of going after Microsoft for bundling a free browser (and in no way preventing the use of other browsers) with their OS, our esteemed regulators should concern themselves with artificial market segmentation through region coding of DVDs and Blu-ray. Oh, wait, that would actually be helpful to consumers, so that's not going to happen.

[Humodour]

Sigh, thanks European Commission! Now I will have the inconvenience of not having an OS come with a browser, even though people in all other regions of the world will have it bundled in, yet still have the choice of downloading other browsers should they choose to do so.

 

Needless to say, from my point of views as a consumer, I think this decision is outright moronic. Perhaps instead of going after Microsoft for bundling a free browser (and in no way preventing the use of other browsers) with their OS, our esteemed regulators should concern themselves with artificial market segmentation through region coding of DVDs and Blu-ray. Oh, wait, that would actually be helpful to consumers, so that's not going to happen.

 

Form your point of view as a consumer, you won't even notice it. Most OEMs will ship a browser, and those that don't, you'll just be given a prompt when you first start your computer to chose and download one, taking all of, oh, 1 minute?

 

That's fine, but as I said, the business models of most browsers revolve around something other than upfront fees (yet is are very solid and conspicuous business models nonetheless), which is a point I notice you've avoided.

 

Such as?

 

Read the thread; I mentioned them in my first post.

 

Volourn, little known fact, but anti-trust laws are actually designed to control monopolies, not punish the successful.

[alanschu]

Read the thread; I mentioned them in my first post.

 

Opera and Firefox should be given a free ride on Microsofts dime? What?

 

You mean like the free ride Microsoft got by violating anti-trust laws for years to the detriment of competing products? You wouldn't let thief keep the stolen diamonds because because they suddenly stopped robbing banks.

 

Although, what are you going to use to download Firefox or Chrome on a fresh installation. A bit problematic that.

 

A mini package manager? Windows Update? You can easily download Firefox on Ubuntu without having any internet browser. It's not exactly hard to figure out.

 

 

 

EDIT: It seems you meant your second post.

 

 

So how does Mozilla make money if I don't use their search bar?

 

How exactly does Chrome make money? A "exactly the opposite" is hardly an explanation.

 

 

On a final note, how is Microsoft doing anything wrong by complying with what the EU asked them to do? I know it's cool to hate on Microsoft, but seriously.

Edited June 15, 2009 by alanschu

[213374U]

EU wants to flex their muscles

 

 

 

...and they achieve only the most abject ridicule, as usual.

 

[Humodour]

So how does Mozilla make money if I don't use their search bar?

 

They don't. Many people use their search bar though - 95% of Mozilla's funding comes from search bar royalties. Mozilla funding is used to make the product better for the user according to the FOSS (free and open source) philosophy, which is why it's a not-for-profit, and not publically listed (and hence not legally bound to generate profit for shareholders).

 

How exactly does Chrome make money? A "exactly the opposite" is hardly an explanation.

 

It's hardly an explanation because I didn't think anybody would want to know. Alright, well, as you hopefully know, Google offers a lot of web-app based products like Google Mail, Google Calendar, Google Docs, etc, many of which are direct competitors to non-cloud based (offline) products from Microsoft and others. Because of this, it's in Google's best interests to push the envelope of web browser capabilities so that what's possible in a web browser is identical to what's possible in pre-compiled binaries like Microsoft Office (ideally). As such, this involves things like speeding up Javascript speed, rendering, and adding new standards such as Open 3d. The more powerful your web browser is (pretty much the more like an operating system, which is at least part of the reason for Chrome's sandbox model - the other being good security), the better Google can make its products - products that compete with Microsoft. Which ties back into Microsoft's own reasons for trying to maintain IE market share, even though most people think they give it away for free as good Samaritans (I can assure you, they don't waste those millions on giving away IE free for your benefit). That reason being: the more people using the deliberately slow IE, the lower the quality of Google's online offerings for most people (IE users), and hence the less likelihood Google's offerings steal market-share (and hence money) from Microsoft.

 

Even if Chrome fails to gain traction, the worst case scenario for Google is that it continues to fund Firefox (searchbar royalties is essentially Google's way of funding Firefox without getting into taxation problems) which is itself many times faster than IE, and beholden only to users and developers, and if Chrome can push Firefox, Opera, Safari and IE to compete more in the process, that's gravy (it already has, sparking a browser speed war which IE is losing badly). But another obvious advantage of Chrome, for Google, is that it uses Google search by default, so that's search market share in the bag for every Chrome user they gain (and that means more financial security, and more people to target ads to, and hence more revenue).

 

On a final note, how is Microsoft doing anything wrong by complying with what the EU asked them to do? I know it's cool to hate on Microsoft, but seriously.

 

They aren't complying with the EU. The EU asked them to wait for their verdict to be passed, and Microsoft said "No, we'll pass our own verdict ahead of you instead", hoping to pressure the EU by sparking exactly this kind of debate here in this thread by looking like a victim. The EU obviously wasn't moved, so that part of the plan backfired, but I imagine they're still happy they made the EU look like the bad guy, even though EU actually considers all the things I've mentioned above when making their decisions on browser anti-trust matters.

[213374U]

The more powerful your web browser is (pretty much the more like an operating system, which is at least part of the reason for Chrome's sandbox model - the other being good security), the better Google can make its products - products that compete with Microsoft. Which ties back into Microsoft's own reasons for trying to maintain IE market share, even though most people think they give it away for free as good Samaritans (I can assure you, they don't waste those millions on giving away IE free for your benefit). That reason being: the more people using the deliberately slow IE, the lower the quality of Google's online offerings for most people (IE users), and hence the less likelihood Google's offerings steal market-share (and hence money) from Microsoft.

So according to you, Google cannot steal more of MS' market share because further development of their web-based apps would lead to incompatibility with IE. MS is artificially stalling web browser tech development, again according to you, and trying to have people use their outdated tech, to keep their customers using their products.

 

Um, so what? "He who dares, wins", or so goes the saying. Unless you are in the EU, in which case, institutions will do the hard work for you - and pass on the cost to the citizenry.

 

If Google's apps are so uber, migration to their software should happen spontaneously. I fail to see how this is a monopolistic practice, in principle or legally.

 

 

They aren't complying with the EU. The EU asked them to wait for their verdict to be passed, and Microsoft said "No, we'll pass our own verdict ahead of you instead", hoping to pressure the EU by sparking exactly this kind of debate here in this thread by looking like a victim.

That's not very exact, I'm afraid. The case was awaiting the EC's ruling (funny that an executive political organ can exercise what's effectively judicial authority, don't you think? - we invented separation of powers, we can do away with it just as easily) on MS bundling IE with W7. MS went ahead and backed down on the issue that had brought about the anti-trust inquiry in the first place, which for all intents and purposes makes the inquiry baseless.

 

Of course, the EC don't take too kindly to being made fools of.

 

Further reading: http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2244050/...cts-ms-ie-plans

[Volourn]

"Volourn, little known fact, but anti-trust laws are actually designed to control monopolies, not punish the successful."

 

Little known fact: That's their original intention, that's not always the case.

 

In the end, they are often abused in order to punish the successful.

[taks]

anti-trust laws are actually designed to control monopolies, not punish the successful

monopolies cannot exist without government laws/regulations in the first place. if it were possible, we'd have evidence of this, but we don't... yet the myth continues. seems almost retarded to keep having to point this out. does nobody ever learn or is everyone simply incapable of actually reading about history from other than ideologically biased locations?

 

In the end, they are often abused in order to punish the successful.

they're written to punish the successful from the outset even if that is not how they are sold to the public (even if some of the proposers actually believe them to be for the good).

 

taks

[Gorgon]

So, in summary, because nothing can exist without government, everything is governments fault.

[Magister Lajciak]

Sigh, thanks European Commission! Now I will have the inconvenience of not having an OS come with a browser, even though people in all other regions of the world will have it bundled in, yet still have the choice of downloading other browsers should they choose to do so.

 

Needless to say, from my point of views as a consumer, I think this decision is outright moronic. Perhaps instead of going after Microsoft for bundling a free browser (and in no way preventing the use of other browsers) with their OS, our esteemed regulators should concern themselves with artificial market segmentation through region coding of DVDs and Blu-ray. Oh, wait, that would actually be helpful to consumers, so that's not going to happen.

 

Form your point of view as a consumer, you won't even notice it. Most OEMs will ship a browser

 

That does mitigate my anger. Hopefully, you are right about this.