Slashdot Mirror
EU Antitrust Troubles Continue For Microsoft
Julie188 writes "Opera Software's year-old antitrust complaint against Microsoft took another step toward being vindicated, and the Oslo-based browser maker can't help crowing over the European Commission's decision. Opera had filed a complaint with the EC in December, 2007, contending that Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows violated antitrust rules. Yesterday, the EC sent a 'Statement of Objections (SO)' to Microsoft with a preliminary finding that bundling IE with Windows does indeed constitute an antitrust abuse. Microsoft has eight weeks to plead its case and change the EC's mind, an unlikely outcome if ever there was one. Opera's CEO said, 'On behalf of all Internet users, we commend the Commission for taking the next step towards restoring competition in a market that Microsoft has strangled for more than a decade.'"
How likely is this to affect the US?
Removing IE breaks a lot of functionality in XP, so I doubt they can simply have bundled and unbundled product lines like they do with WMP. Windows would require massive retrofitting to make IE that replacable.
So would MS maintain two very diffrent OSs in order to continue selling the completely integrated product in America, or would they make IE swappable?
That only telling people the full terms of use after they can no longer return the product is also a pretty underhanded means of doing business?
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Its hard to deny that MS has gotten where is has through quality or good practices. I hope the EU does what we should have, and slaps them hard on behalf of all the consumers and competitors they have swindled.
FTP? Welcome to 1993 if that's the case. They install a lot of other crap with 80% of users choose not to use - iTunes vs Media player for mp3's is a good example.
This is retarded. I, for one, cannot WAIT to go back to having no browser in my OS so I have to go out and buy a second fucking browser. Having a browser included with the OS is essential and just because Slashdot hates Microsoft doesn't make it less so.
They can't sell Windows without IE, I need that for downloading Opera!
...how it is that the courts in America ruled that Microsoft was ok to keep bundling IE with Windows, while Microsoft's hopes in the EU when faced with the same issue is basically nil? (by the way, this question is half sarcastic, half totally honest)
"I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
How is the average computer illiterate going to download a browser if Microsoft is not allowed to bundle one? Buy a disc?
*
Because other major operating system's don't include a web browser. that's like not coming with a copy-paste command nowadays. Its REQUIRED.
You can still use opera if you want, that's not the issue.
You failed to confirm you are a human. Please start from the beginning and try again. If you are a human, we apologize for the inconvenience...
Anon due to work regulations.
IIRC the way Windows XP N was in Europe was that the user was presented with a choice of several non Microsoft media players at first run.
Nobody actually bought N (well, no OEMs, I'm sure a few people did out of principle). My guess is Microsoft tries to offer that as a combined product/SKU with the "no media player" editions and, failing that, it'll get it's own SKU.
The European Commission were the ones that actually got them to make "Windows N" without media player. And in that case I think MS could have actually left a few core "system-ish" files and still have met their requirements.
This time let's see a version of Windows that doesn't have MSHTML.DLL, SHDOCVW.DLL, or even WININET.DLL. Then perhaps developer finally will stop embedding IE or calling these files bypassing users choice of browser... Or perhaps not. Did Windows N actually ship to stores or get preloaded anywhere?
Well, I guess I will just have to stick with Windows NT 3.51 and Windows 95 if I want that sort of thing. :P (BTW, Mozilla SeaMonkey 1.1.14 works great on these!)
Garmin sues Toyota and GM for bundling GPS navigators in their cars.
Followed by Sony suing them for bundling stereos...
I think that microsoft should make it a one or two click affair to try out different browsers, different programs like open office for trying.
at least i think this would a reasonable solution to the anti-trust
(except my fantasy of microsoft getting sliced into little pieces :D )
Really? Here's a question for whatever 80 year old, possibly Amish, European dumbass thought that one up. If Windows doesn't come with a web browser, how do you get one? You just go download firefox...ohhhhh wait, you can't go download it because there's no browser. You don't see audio editors going out of business just because Sound Editor has been included with Windows for like 15 years. And I don't think Adobe is very worried about Photoshop getting trampled by MS Paint. There's a reason CNN doesn't just use Windows Movie Maker for their field editing too. This is just idiotic.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
That's just silly. Do you really want developers all installing versions of the browser core all over the OS with their applications? Besides, WININET has been replaced by something better anyway.
I have an idea. Let's go and sue Linux distributions for bundling free and open source browsers with it, because it wrecks the market for my $40 closed source browser!
Opera's antitrust case is stupid. Every operating system comes with a browser. Linux comes with a browser. OS/X comes with a browser. iPhone comes with a browser.
So, if Microsoft is screwed by this obvious example of European protectionism, I would hope they leave the pieces of IE but in a developer friendly way.
I would just break out all the windows that comprise IE, and let every developer on the planet use all the pieces of IE to make their own IE and sell it. Then Microsoft could make its own IE available for download, and Opera would still be as screwed as it deserves for putting lawyers into the marketplace.
This is my sig.
How about a non-browser dependent package manager? Someone, please introduce Bill Gates to 2009!
Of course I still prefer buying a nice shiny CD from the Mozilla Store. (Buy one! Better yet, buy a dozen!)
Opera have always been suffering under the delusion that customers would be lining up to buy their desktop product if only Microsoft wasn't "strangling the market". This is such bullshit. Since day 1 everyone has been saying that Opera are on crack. Web browsers are expected to be free. Sure, maybe some people would like to pay for a web browser.. I mean, people pay for bottled water too.
Every time Opera talks to the press I get the feeling that they would like nothing better than to force Microsoft and Mozilla to charge $99 so they can go back to doing the same.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Ford sues Chevy for IP infringement, all automakers tremble in fear...
WTF!
ok fine, remove the browser and ftp client...fine...see how f**king how far the OS can go when forced to be released CRIPPLED on the internet and no means to get access!
There is no F**king thing in the OS that stops the user/admin from using IE to download and install another client for ANY protocol (GET IT - ANY F**KING PROTOCOL they want a client for!!!!).
without the ability to access the internet to download other tools they choose to use, how the F will the blinded-by-zealot-mentality-opensource-type be able to get the tools they want?
Get your heads out of your asses and think things through for F's sake...jeezus f**king chr**t...so f**king close to the forest you can't see the damned trees!
Why does everyone think you need a browser to download something. It's not like HTTP is a protocol made for downloading files.How about FTP, p2p, or an add/remove programs that actually adds programs.
It doesn't have to be hard. I cannot believe so many people on slashdot actually think you need a browser to download a file. A lot of times a browser uses FTP anyway to download something. Now I will agree that most people have become accustomed to having a browser pre-installed. I'll even agree that it can be useful. But it absolutely is not necessary for downloading.
Dear poor brainwashed windows users, in the free world there is something called Package Managers These wonderful tools makes managing all your software downloads and updates for your computer a very pleasant experience.
OEM preinstalls.
microsoft will sidestep this by including a third party browser like they used to do with netscape. and just like the did with netscape no one will know it's there.
Oo, oo! I know! When Microsoft goes away?
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
From a ruling in 2001, they are certainly a monopoly, and have abused that status.
Link.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
I would think the argument that Microsoft swindles its customers is foolish. There is stuff that Ubuntu does that I think Microsoft is remiss in not doing, certainly. Ubuntu's out of the box DVD burning and ISO viewing capabilities are certainly better than what Windows offers, but, to say that Linux is better is silly. To say that Microsoft rips its customers off, is just ignorant.
Really, the only real weak link in the Microsoft stack is actually IE. But IE was better than everyone else for almost 7 years, and, the only reason its lagging is arguably because Google is writing 50M checks a year to Mozilla and is also probably spending as much on Chrome. Similarly, Apache enjoys its success against IIS because Apache is well funded by the consortium of ISPs that use it.
Beyond that, there are some noticable gaps between Linux and Windows.
Right now, my Vista desktop is in a lot of ways far more polished and more attractive than the Linux desktop is. The Windows 95 desktop of Start Bar and multiview folders is a design that has proven so successful that even Apple's dockbar is closer to it than the original Mac Finder (it's even at the bottom now!), and of course, that 9x bar is ripped off completely by KDE and Gnome, but with "other stuff". Sure KDE 4.x struggles along with its search in the start bar trick, but it works swimmingly well on my Vista right now.
Internally, a brief scan of Vista shows an operating system where Linux lacks and in some rather strong ways. Right off the wheel, Windows desktop tends to get the balance of thread priorities between services and user interface right. There is no answer to WAML on Linux. There is no answer to DirectX 10.
Everyone rips the Windows SDK but it has fonts native to the drawing API. Honestly, not having fonts with X might be hyped as a good architectural support but honestly its a copout because X lets you draw everything else. But if anything vindicates Microsoft's GDI model it is that Remote Desktop is proven and solid and excellent with Windows, and Linux doesn't even really use X's remoting capabilities for its remote desktop. So there, you have a Linux operating system that robbed its gui developers of something as basic as fonts in order to achieve a network transparency that you don't even use for your own remote desktops, eschewing a simpler bitmaps based api instead. How foolish is that!
No Linux widget set has the flexibility of the the much maligned USER and COMMON CONTROL widget library that bundles with Windows. The File Open dialogs in Linux are weak compared to Windows XP and offer simply no comparison to that in Windows Vista. ListViews in GTK are ok but they don't have the report view that was added for XP and they certainly don't have all the other fancy stuff that came out with Vista, and finally, yes, even the dated Windows MENU objects are going to be joined by the swank new Office 2007 menu bars. That's right, Office 2007 menus are going to be NATIVE TO WINDOWS 7. Please, desktop Linux? Desktop Windows is simply better, and not just better, but amazingly better and in a lot of ways.
The desktops for Linux are not as universally extensible as those for Windows and largely that's a function of Linux being unable to agree on a single object model whereas COM is now well entrenched, well understood, and at least for inprocess objects, works rather well. Where's IDispatch for Linux?
If we go back up to the desktop, we can have a look at Windows control panel and just perhaps enumerate a few quick things still missing or incomplete in Ubuntu. Accessibility. Speech. Color Profiles.
Then of course we look at system snapshots that Windows let you roll back system versions if you want to.
I'm still waiting for a Linux development product with an integrated forms editor, the same way that has been out since VB and then Visual C++, since, well, 1993, besides Java. KDevelop can't do it. Linux development in some ways is stuck in a world that Microsoft left almost 20 years ago,
This is my sig.
I personally look forward to when TV's are no longer sold with remotes. Only when we stop the unfair bundling of remotes with TV's will consumers be forced to no longer accept "good enough" remotes when far better remotes are available for purchase.
Personally, I find the whole IE bundling witch hunt paternalistic. Let Opera, or whoever, advertise their products in the marketplace, and get people to buy them. Firefox did that full-page ad and that did far more to increase its market exposure and usage than all of the thousands upon thousands of dollars wasted on anti-trust litigation.
What a great idea. Let's force Apple to stop bundling Safari with Mac OS X, and force Ubuntu to stop bundling Firefox, and force ...
After all, we need a level playing field, right? Why should Windows be the only widely-distributed system without a standard bundled browser?
You can be sure that the EU wouldn't be doing this if Microsoft was a European company. In the end, all it's going to come down to is how much cash they can extort out of Microsoft.
I don't think the EU was quite right with this one. Browsers have become an integral part of any device that can use the internet and I'm hard pressed to think of any major OS that doesn't have some form of browser built in. Internet Explorer is a basic tool that many people, including myself, use to download our preferred choice.
I absolutely cannot stand IE as it is today, and so, I'm typing this post using Google Chrome on Windows Vista.
How does Opera even make an anti-trust argument when FireFox is gobbling up IE market share? For an increasing percentage of Windows users, IE is the thing you use to download some other browser.
From a consumer perspective, that a Linux distribution comes with Firefox is not really any different than a Windows distribution coming with IE. In both cases, I can go and get and use the browser that I want to use. Really, in that sense, Opera's problem is not so much Microsoft as it is Google. FireFox and Chrome are both better than Opera is too, and that's really what Opera's problem is.
This is my sig.
So Microsoft did make a 'N' series of Vista (Ultimate N, Business N, Home Premium N, Home Basic N etc.) for EU, basically that's have the Windows Media Player and all the WMV/WMA functionalities removed. (i.e. Sound Recorder can't save in WMA)
But I doubt if it's cheaper than non-N version. (Could some people in EU tell me?)
If EU is going to be decided as antitrust, Microsoft will just make the N not to include the browser. Who is going to lose?
How about OS X and Linux? Can they ship browser binary bits on the disc?
This is getting utterly ridiculous.
Windows has notepad. I suppose notepad is used even more often than IE. Is bundling Windows with notepad an antitrust abuse? Does that mean that any proprietary OS has to be shipped stipped of all its software except essential management utilities?
Removing both IE and notepad from Windows will break a lot of functionality. Well, for notepad replacement Windows has edit.com although it should be removed as well.
Firefox/Thunderbird have been success without complaints because they're good pieces of software. MS beat most of its competitors making not the best but better software. Novell and Borland are excellent examples.
I think bundling their FTP client is seriously hampering the market for FTP clients. Please remove it!!!
Yes, the Microsoft antitrust case is fucking retarded. The EU is simply socialist. Now I want to ask a serious question. Why is it that people hate success? Hatred of the rich is what this ultimately boils down to.
"How is the average computer illiterate going to download a browser if Microsoft is not allowed to bundle one? Buy a disc?"
:)
Sure! Do you want 3.5", 5.25" or 8"?
In fact is a wonderful idea. You buy a remote made by a third party. All tv makers will follow a standard communication protocol for sending commands for TV's, DVD players, you'll have true universal remotes IR or radio. If the protocol is bidirectional you can even integrate it in your own domotica system (my dream).
"... bribe... evil deeds..."
Microsoft is not bad, it is just misunderstood. (When I wrote that, my keyboard exploded, and I had to install another.)
People think that Microsoft is a computer company that is abusive. But that's not true. Microsoft is an abuse company that uses computer equipment as a means of delivering abuse. Seen in that way, Microsoft is completely successful at what it tries to do.
It is very dangerous when rulings like this come about. Who is to define when bundling of one product with another constitutes antitrust violation? When Apple "bundles" Safari with Mac OS X, is that antitrust? When you install Ubuntu and Firefox is "bundled" with it, is that antitrust? When you install a text editor and syntax highlighting files for a bunch of languages are "bundled" with it, is that antitrust? What about Solitaire? Can that be bundled? Why the emphasis on the browser? Because Opera feels it inconvenient that Windows already comes with a browser?
Let me tell you something. I found out about Opera when it was in version 3. Back then, you could use it for 30 days (if you didn't use it during a day, it didn't count against your 30 days), and if you liked it, you had to pay. Shareware. Their marketing message at the time was something along the lines that, we're so sure you'll like the speed of our browser, here are the links to download Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator. Try and compare. And they were absolutely right. Their browser was faster in every respect, leaner, smaller, tighter. When you clicked a file to download it, it immediately began to download, while you were selecting the destination. Contrast that with IE and Netscape of the time, which waited until you took half an hour to navigate to where you wanted the file before they even started. Page rendering was faster. The interface was uncluttered, simple, quick, easy to use. It was a wonderful product. I continued upgrading through versions 4, 5, 6, and 7. At some point in there, it stopped being shareware and became free software. And at some point, I stopped using it and moved on to Firefox. The reason was simple. The browser grew and began to include all kinds of bells and whistles. The interface became cluttered. Too much junk in my opinion. I am sure that some people like that, but for me, the very reason to use Opera was that it was the opposite of these other bloated browsers. It became IMHO what I was trying to get away from. Don't get me wrong. In the 5 or 6 or 7 years that I used Opera, it was a lifesaver. It was a joy to use, much, much, much better than the alternative (which at some point between the demise of Netscape and the first release of Firefox, was only IE or very crippled browsers). I just think they should have concentrated on having the tiniest yet fully featured browser, lightning fast, low memory usage, etc. So they could keep linking to the IE download page, because they could be so sure and correct that their browser kicks the pants off the competition. Unfortunately they chose the legal route, which is always a bad thing.
Back to Microsoft. If due to some court case, Microsoft is not allowed to bundle anything together, then soon nobody will be allowed to bundle anything together. This will be horrible! Besides, if you buy computer with Windows OS and there is no browser bundled with it, how in the hell are you supposed to download a different browser? 99.9% of computer users will NOT know how to download a browser without first having one with which to download one. In fact, even if you were going to compile wget from sources, you'd still need a browser to get the sources and the compiler. This is an example of courts, companies, lawyers, who have no clue about computers (and think the monitor is the computer) just trying to play the lawsuit lottery against Microsoft. Face it. They no longer have a monopoly. Apple is nearly at 10% of the market. Linux has some share. The *BSDs have some share. People DO have a choice now. If they don't buy an Apple (which is dead simple to use and doesn't cost more than a comparable "PC" machine), and if they don't want to learn Linux (or won't or can't) then it is their choice to use Windows. And there is no monopoly in the browser area either. With IE, Konquerer, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari, shit the list goes on and on. What monopoly? This is not antitrust. This is bullshit. Sorry. I LOVE Opera. Opera 3 especially. It has come a long way since then, many improvements, but the fact is that when all was darkness around and Opera shone some light on the Internet by making it actually bearable to use rather than the horror that was IE or Netscape, but I am no fan of this lawsuit.
IE and Explorer are tied into each other, aren't they?
Plus, it's their OS, are you saying they can't bundle their own browser with it? Can't people just use IE to surf the internet and go download Firefox or any other browser, then stop using IE?
Theres a fine line between being a sore looser using legal methods to whine about your market position and having some kind of point from an anti-trust perspective.
I'm no MS fan but the EU commission shit after all these years is quite frankly really starting to get old. We're still talking about if MS should have the right to include a browser with its platform?
Are they going after apple for bundling safari with its OS? What about MS including pocket IE on their windows mobile platform? Are these anti-trust violation as well?
If I design a font pack that competes with MS Windows default fonts do I have an anti-trust case against MS because they bundled fonts with their operating system?
Its not like the world would end if windows did not exist. There are other viable choices of operating systems avaliable on the market today.
It might however be exceedingly difficult to download Opera via your new windows PC without a web browser being installed with it.
Especially after ipswitch files an anti-trust suite for MS bundling a command line ftp client with their operating system.
I guess they can always bring back hyper terminal and download the browser from the opera BBS using x-modem or kermit.
Because it is impossible to get access to another computer. So much so that we should support their monopoly no matter how damaging it is to computing.
How about a non-browser dependent package manager? Someone, please introduce Bill Gates to 2009!
Would that be the same 2009 where hosting everything from e-mail clients to word processors in browsers, making far more advanced use of scripting and plug-in systems than anyone dreamed of a few years ago, is one of the dominant trends in the software industry?
But I guess code re-use sucks and we should go back to the days of reinventing the wheel with every new application. Yep, software was much better back then.
Remind me again, do any common Linux distros have used the same front-end to support browsing both local filesystems and the web?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
And OJ isn't a murderer.
Okay, let me try again. I was ranting earlier. The theory of the antitrust case is that there is an applications barrier to competition. The belief is that by bundling IE with the operating system, consumers will not want to go out and purchase an alternative browser thus, eliminating any prospect of innovation and crushing competition with anticompetitive behavior. This theory is so wrong I have no idea where to begin, but I'll take a shot at it. First, every business should be anticompetitive and they are. Bill gates started this business and he's paying for it. He has a right to protect it short of using physical force to achieve his dominance. When a business lowers prices, becomes more agressive with ads or restructures in any way shape or form, they are demonstrating anticompetitive behavior. The EU has this warped idea of competition in which no one actually wins, like little kids playing a game of Monopoly. That's not competition, that's socialism. Note that this isn't just in the EU, it's in the united states too. Second, any type of free market barrier to competition is impossible. The only barriers to competition that exist are government created barriers. Other corporations are whining because Microsoft has lifted the standard of quality that needs to be overcome before their product will gain widespread acceptance. Finally, most consumers do not need to use another browser because IE works and it works well. Before you can convince people to change over to something else, you need to show them that they can do everything with the alternate product that they could do with the original one, but even better in every way. Firefox is proof there is no barrier to competition. Firefox's market share is only slightly above IE's. That should be proof that dynamic market forces do work. By the way, I'm posting this with Firefox 3.0 on a Windows system. The fact Microsoft bundled IE with their OS does not restrict my consumer choice to use Firefox.
I mean they not only bundle the firfox on default cd, but also OO.org and bunch of others. And no, giving it free does not make them immune. And what about KDE? as a project they don't support anything but integration with konqueror. (well not entirely true, but they still bundle it by default)
BAIN http://www.devslashzero.com
And I have mod points...
People are drastically missing the point here. Nobody's punishing Microsoft because they're Microsoft, and nobody's saying you can't bundle a browser with an OS.
The facts are these:
1. You can't leverage a monopoly in another market.
2. Web browsers and operating systems are separate markets.
3. Microsoft has the monopoly on Operating Systems.
4. Microsoft leverages their Windows monopoly to further their browser market share.
So nobody is saying Microsoft can't bundle a browser - they just have to provide options. Make it so you can choose your browser on install, make it so the OEM can choose a browser to bundle with default installs, whatever. Some sort of choice. You can bundle fifty browsers if you want. Just don't bundle your own and only your own.
As of now the problem isn't that Microsoft is bundling a browser, it's that they're bundling only their browser and offering no options to anybody.
As a web developer, I really and truly hate Microsoft from the bottom of my heart for the steaming pile of incompatibility that is IE.
However, I cannot conceive selling a consumer/business OS without a web browser these days. From the end user perspective, browsing the web is simply a piece of basic functionality. What's more, it would make windows the only consumer grade OS that does not have a browser after installing a graphical environment. OS X has safari. The major desktop environments for *nix have a browser by default (galleon or konqueror) or the distro has added one (firefox in xubuntu, for example). Even damn small has dillo.
Technically, it does not make much sense to yank the browser out. If I understand correctly, Trident draws much of the windows desktop anyway, so it is a small step to wrap a window around it and call it a browser.
No, today the browser is just part of the OS. The Commission's directorate general of anti-competition (DG Comp, for those who hang out at Schuman) missed the boat on this one. They should have been fighting this fight a decade ago. Today is too late.
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
Remind me again, do any common Linux distros have used the same front-end to support browsing both local filesystems and the web?
I'm hoping this is a joke; how could anyone attack the Linux community and its distributions for not sharing the same code-base? Surely no-one is that ignorant.
How many distributions use Gnome or KDE as default? A nice chunk. And how many allow you to switch (easily?) to another Desktop Environment (for the sake of example)? All of them.
I'll humour you and answer your initial question by giving two browser names: Konqueror, Galeon.
Dropped because, in microsofts words, they couldn't compete with a browser built into the OS (Safari).
MS don't think you can compete with a built-in browser.
What we have here is people complaining that Windows comes with IE by default. Except that pretty much every other OS/Window Manager does too, but they're ok because they're not dominant.
So what we have is a case whereby if a company becomes the dominant player in OS's specifically, they are expected to strip down their offerings of any bonus/extra software just in case it's seen as squashing the competition.
Oh how I would laugh should this complaint ever be directed at Apple for example. In a parallel universe, where Apple has 95% of the desktop, could you imagine Steve Jobs saying "Yeah no problem, we'll take out iTunes/Safari".
Oh, and who is leading this complaint again? Opera you say? What do they make again?
throw new NoSignatureException();
've got a great idea. If someone coincided the term 'browser market' and made shares such a big deal, let's also create an RSS reader market and sue MS that it's monopolizing the RSS reader market with IE. I chuckle here when I read that OEM's inclination towards pushing in other browsers with Windows was the fact IE is bundled. Funny. They can smack a tri-color pony from TrU on your shipped background and the only reason they haven't done it is because they've not been paid for. Oh right... someone would bundle Opera out of sheer generosity, yeah. Well, thank god for two things: 1. I haven't used IE the last 4 years except to do some browser-compatibility checks, and I guess there is no monopolized bundled experience with IE. 2. The web standards development is independent of market shares.
Strange this isn't picked up in the Linux Standard Base.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
A major part of Opera's complaint was explicitly the "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" strategy in conjunction with bundling. It seems this argument is now often forgotten in news and discussions.
The problem is more complex than "Oh, don't be anal, what's so terrible about bundling, you gotta have bundling." Can't you remember our discussions? How a monopolist breaking standards hurts us all?
Hey all, I propose a new antitrust case. Let's sue Microsoft for distributing it's version of Stdlib.h with Visual Studios 2008. You see, Microsoft is hurting developer choice and stifling innovation by pushing Borland's version and Glibc's from the market.
that's better than waiting.
Oh... Qt has been out for a long long time.
MS can not help itself BUT be unethical. It is not just what they know; it is what they are based on. As it is, it is never innovative. It does BUY a lot of innovative companies, or steals the tech from them. Of course, with their true RD program in place, that is going to change. Right now, it is about trying to lock up software ideas with patents, but still...
The best thing that can happen for America (and the world) is that MS stays together and is held in check. EU is about to lower the boom. Most likely Holder will do so as well (though to be honest, Obama is showing that he is more pragmatic than a party hack; very refreshing compared to the last 8 years). If MS is broken up, I think that we will see true innovation come from at least one of the groups assuming that they create multiple companies with each having initial duplicate code.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
No that I'd classify Microsoft as any kind of favorite, but get real already folks.
If Microsoft should disband IE from Windows, then the same should go for Apple with Safari, ASUS with Mozilla on their Eee PC and any other vendor that creates a preference for a browser.
And, for the bigger picture, the same should go for any application distributed with the operating system.
And, lastly, any operating system distributed with a computer should be disbanded and sold separately.
So what about cellphones ? Of course, with the multitude of operating systems for cellphones on the market, the same should apply there.
Etc, etc, etc....
Let's get real for a moment - consumers in general have no longing to build and brew their own PC/cellphone/PDA/whatever.. None at all. They want a solution, and they want it to work.
These anti-competitive lawsuits are starting to borderline on ridiculous. Opera has the same competitive environment on the PC as it has on the Mac and on Linux and FreeBSD. They choose to compete on the market, they know the stakes beforehand, and if their product turns up sour, they shouldn't be allowed to file suit.
This signature is DRM protected. By the DMCA, you are not allowed to counteract or oppose to it.
My father works part-time for the Foreign Office (FCO) here in the UK. Last week, he sent me this email:
"After ordering hundred of computers loaded with Vista, the FCO has done a deal with Microsoft whereby we can buy the following. Excel 2007; Word 2007; Language Settings; Office Accountant; Powerpoint 2007. The price for this package is £17.00, as opposed to a r.r.p. of £172. So a big saving. It seems attractive on the surface: should I go for it? Or won't it add much ? I can only order via my office computer."
I was conflicted: tell him to go for it, or point out that this is Microsoft's way of screwing over the government of the UK and sucking needless taxpayers' cash into the bank accounts of the Microsoft monopoly?
I told him to go for it - but at least I felt guilty about it...
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
if microsoft had to unbundle ie how many people would really know where to get their favorite non-ie browser from? most home users don't even know about the ftp protocol and even if they did can you access a search engine by connecting to ftp://google.com? what if you don't know the exact ftp repository? would you prefer these people telnet to the http daemon and send raw commands? and even if microsoft were to bundle 20 other browsers with their operating system what's to stop them at browsers, now we've got anti-trust law-suits against file system types... or we've got 100's of other browser makers suing to get their browser included in windows. microsoft is fighting a loosing battle as king of the hill. if a browser maker wants to bundle their software they can do so with linux, it's not an unfair advantage to bundle software with *gasp* an operating system that requires software to be functional.
I'm expecting from Microsoft to file a complaint versus Apple demanding inclusion of IE on every iPhone and iPod.
How did that get modded flaimbait? It raises a good point. The boundary between vital and optional OS components is not clear cut at all. It's probably changing. So answer the question.
Does having a witty signature really indicate normality?
Are they going to go after Apple for bundling Safari with OSX? How can a vendor even try to sell an OS in this day and age that doesn't come with a web browser?
If Microsoft actually goes along with this, the best they can do is to present users with a choice when they go to "the Internet". In IE7, users are given a choice to select their preferred search provider. It seems like they will have to expand that and make the user choose their preferred web browser. Of course they will make IE the default, and include out dated versions of the others. Or maybe someone at MS will have a sense of humor, and they'll come up with a Googlesque "Feeling Lucky" option. Of course Lynx will have to be available, if for no other reason than the WTF factor.
MS does NOT repeat *NOT* have a monopoly, what a joke, if you say they have a monopoly you are denying that Linux, OSX does not exist at all,, as far as i can see, they do exist so you are just being idiots and cry babies, "MS is better than us so im goign to go cry to daddy" (daddy = EU) what a sad joke. Here's an idea, create a product that meets the customers requirements and that meets the markets needs, and gain your own market share. Instead of trying to drag MS down to your low level of performance. You say compete on a equal free market, do you remember a time when MS did not exist at all, and UNIX ruled the world. Unix (by IBM) was THE OS. Then along came MS with DOS and then W3.0 adn Win 311 and they went from zero market share to 90%+ market share. All that time Linux was busy copying UNIX and trying to win some of UNIX's majority market share, (also keep in mind IBM was a closed hardware platform, before "ibm-compatable"). MS and windows met the consumer requirements, people were willing to PAY for the product, even when there was free alternatives. MS should not be called a monopoly, FOSS should be called morons for throwing away market share, FOSS you've had 17 years to do something with yourselves and all you do is whine and bitch and cry about MS who are doing very well for themselves and the market. Clearly they listen and respond to the market, they provide what the market wants and what the market is will to pay good money for. FOSS you cant even GIVE AWAY your "crapware". and for the past 17 your still banging away on the same tired drum. "MS is this, MS is evil, we dont like MS because..." cry, whine moan.. Get over it, pay your programmers, listen to the vast majority of the computer users on the planet, or give up. 17 years and your still NOWHERE, MS OWNS the OS market, why ,,, because you let them.
blame no one but yourselves, and stop trying to get the courts to make excuses for your own incompetance.
The absurdity of this is overwhelming. Nobody ever thinks about why Opera is doing this - it isn't because they love "the people" and want to ensure they get a good browser. It's because they really want some more of that money (yes, yes, Opera is free - I understand their revenue model). What a great way to abuse a bloated bureaucracy - if you can't defeat your competitors in the open market, then get government to handicap them for you.
But seriously, how the does EU "law" even work? I'm not even going to insult Hammurabi by calling them "laws." I'm going to henceforth refer to EU ruling as "Lord Fauntleroy's Whims".
So lemme get this straight: They ruled in 2002 that MS had to decouple IE from Windows, and allow users not to have it as the default browser, yadda yadda yadda, all so other browser makers could "compete." And I'm really sure that your average user, when confronted with an OS with *no* browser is really going to go comparison-shopping. No, I'm pretty sure it goes like this: "WTF!? Der Komputer hat keine browser!?! Ich moechte god damned IE!" *downloads IE.*
Anyway, so now, the commission has *further* decided that Microsoft can't even include IE at all, because Opera bitched about it? Seriously, when does it end? When Opera's happy? What's next?
"EU rules that Microsoft Windows 7 runs too fast, looks too pretty. Due to a complaint from Sun who said that Microsoft is abusing their ability to produce good software that runs well, the EU has ruled that Microsoft must write an "Uglification and Slowification" patch within 15 minutes or else be fined 1 Hojillion Euro per second until they do." Ugh.
First off, as a loyal Mozilla user since the days of Mosaic, I strongly disagree that IE was "better" in 1996. Penn State installed IE on all its machine, and I hated it.
What was good about NN? IE4 was flat out better. You had a fully programmable DOM in JavaScript, and NN had layer tags, partial scripting capability, and then document.write to redo the whole document for everything else. I mean, how many years went by where Netscape could not do reflow content around hidden elements? I remember a lot of web developers that wanted Netscape to win, didn't like Microsoft, but wound up being impressed with what they did with IE 4. I remember sitting back popping a cold one with a big Netscape fan, screwing around with IE 4 Javascript, and we both looked at each like, it's all over for Netscape if they don't respond.
And they didn't. And it's not like they didn't have the money. At the time, Netscape had billions in venture capital and they blew it on turning a browser into this whole computing platform, except that it sucked to program it.
The fact of the matter is, sometimes yeah, giving something away works, but, if it you do that, it has to be good. IE was given away for a long time when NN was being charged for, and went nowhere. Everyone had IE 2 and the W95 plus pack, and it sucked. But people went and bought NN.
If -anyone- killed NN by giving a product away for free, too, it is the Apache Foundation and the FOSS community. Let's not forget that the whole point of Netscape's business was an end to end internet with the big money coming out of the enterprise and that there was a Netscape Enterprise Web Server. Netscape was expected to make big money off of their server business, much more so than their browser business, and their efforts to monetize the web server business were shouted out and drowned out by FOSS advocates, who went with Apache.
This is my sig.
What is wrong about making money as a company.
You can choose not to install Safari and OS X still works perfectly.
Not installing webkit the cross platform HTML engine will break a few applications. Note the word cross platform. Application developers can still depend on Safari engine and release cross platform. IE engine is windows only.
Well, here's what I can't figure out. If Microsoft is supposed to not supply a browser, how does one get one on their computer? And at this point everyone is used to browsers being free and integral, so telling people they MUST buy one because the governing body is trying to encourage innovation and detour monopolistic practices is going to go over like a wet brick.
So I don't particularly see how Microsoft could get away from installing SOME browser on the computers, which is what the problem is in the first place. If they distributed opera instead of IE, someone else would complain about the fact that Opera was the only choice. And since Microsoft distributes Opera now on their computers, then when Opera has a problem, that must be a Microsoft problem. Etc Etc Etc Ad Nauseum.
2^3 * 31 * 647
Absolutely nothing. The problem is that Opera is abusing anti-competition laws in the EU. The intent of anti-monopoly/trust/competition laws is to protect individual consumers, not to give companies a government-enforced weapon to bash each other over the heads with. There are a few reasons why this is a messed-up situation:
First, enforcing these gray-area "anti-competition" laws puts the EU in the position of having to decide the optimal amount of "competition" in the market in a given industry. They also, implicitly, then have to make decisions about what is a "fair" amount of market share for a particular company, for a particular product line. It becomes a situation where they're like the "cosmic fairness arbiter," and companies petition them for favors. Entrenched bureaucracy, untouchable by voters, results in corruption.
Second, the assumption is made that lost revenue for Microsoft translates directly into "more jobs for the rest of us" (somehow). It doesn't, and here's why. Some of that lost revenue is going to be the fact that Microsoft has to expend resources to comply with EU rulings - they're going to have to spend developer time altering software, dealing with EU trustees, etc. That's just resources down the drain. Nobody benefits from that. Now, if the EU rulings result in an artificial shifting of market share away from Microsoft to other companies, consumers only benefit if those resources flow to a competitor who creates value more efficiently than Microsoft. Ignoring mindless MS-bashing ("DUURR - M$ is soo inefficient."), I don't think that anyone could legitimately make the blanket statement that "all software development companies that compete with Microsoft in this product line are more efficient than Microsoft."
The key thing to remember is that anti-monopoly/trust/competition laws are there to benefit individual people, not other companies. Opera's pretense that they just want "more competition" is hypocritical. They don't want "more competition," they want less of it from Microsoft. They want more money. There's nothing wrong about that, but abusing laws intended to benefit consumers is not an OK way to go about it.
How are consumers going to feel if they buy a computer and it comes with no browser? It's essentially useless out of the box. Shut up Opera, this is bad for everybody.
So even if this thing goes nowhere, Opera's complaint still forced Microsoft to default to standards mode in IE8.
Clever signature text goes here.
The absurdity of this is overwhelming.
What's absurd is the average Slashdotter's understanding of economics and antitrust law.
Nobody ever thinks about why Opera is doing this - it isn't because they love "the people" and want to ensure they get a good browser.
This is both a strawman and irrelevant. It's like arguing that when Opera calls the cops after someone robs their office no one thinks if they're doing it out of love of the people. Of course they aren't, but that doesn't mean people think they are and it doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce either antitrust laws or theft laws because of it. Sometimes when people act in their own best interests (like reporting a theft of their property) the laws can work in the best interests of that company and society.
It's because they really want some more of that money.
Gee really? Corporations want money? Thanks for the inside info genius.
...if you can't defeat your competitors in the open market, then get government to handicap them for you.
Yeah, I also get the government to handicap the mafia for me by forcing them to obey the criminal law codes that apply to everyone.
But seriously, how the does EU "law" even work?
So let me be sure understand you. You don't know how the law works, but you though instead of learning you'd come to Slashdot and post about how stupid the laws you don't understand are? That's just brilliant.
I'm not even going to insult Hammurabi by calling them "laws." I'm going to henceforth refer to EU ruling as "Lord Fauntleroy's Whims".
Yeah those whimsical europeans copying american antitrust laws almost exactly. What nonsensical hilarity.
So lemme get this straight: They ruled in 2002 that MS had to decouple IE from Windows, and allow users not to have it as the default browser, yadda yadda yadda, all so other browser makers could "compete."
Umm correct assuming the "they" in your sentence is the US court system.
And I'm really sure that your average user, when confronted with an OS with *no* browser is really going to go comparison-shopping.
You think users would be involved, how cute. Guess what users generally never install Windows and the same magical fairies that install Windows on computers (OEMs) are probably going to put a browser on as well.
Anyway, so now, the commission has *further* decided that Microsoft can't even include IE at all, because Opera bitched about it?
No, the commission has decided that MS bundling Windows and IE seems to be illegal. This isn't terribly surprising since the US already convicted them of the same crime and so did several other countries. The EU has just convicted MS of other crimes regarding other antitrust abuses. The EU just notified Microsoft that they're going forward with the complaint and gave them a couple of months to respond before they go ahead with the prosecution.
Seriously, when does it end? When Opera's happy? What's next?
When MS stops breaking the law and changes their business model to a legal one. So far MS has been intentionally breaking the law and paying the fines and settlements under the assumption that the courts are weak and ineffective. The US proved them right since after MS very large campaign contributions all their legal problems magically went away there. It has come to the point where american companies like Sun take MS to court in the EU because they have no confidence in the US court system. Hopefully the EU will effectively punish MS to the point that they stop their illegal actions and level the playing field.
I don't know if you've noticed but Web technologies pretty much suck these days. Web pages still use half completed versions of decade old specific
That's a really, really good point... I mean, unless the EU intends for everyone to roll their own FTP or HTTP client, there's got to be *some* way to access stuff over a network that comes "bundled" with the OS, like yum or whatever. I'm sure that if it were a Microsoft "Network-Accessibility Application Downloader," Opera would go crying back to mommy about that.
I agree, that it ought to be *some* browser. But now it *can't* be IE. So it has to be one of Microsoft's competitors' browsers. This is beyond the stupid. This is like Burger King complaining to the EU and so now anytime you buy a McDonald's value meal it has to come with Burger King onion rings. If you want the McDonald's fries, you have to get them separately. Retarded.
well, I've long been a proponent of MS picking up an APT like system, but they're on the way to that with Windows Update and the way that the error reporting system works. I mean, it's only a so so deal right now, because they can't be responsible for 3rd party dev, and we here at /. on the forums get that they wouldn't be, but most consumers think it's Microsoft's problem when their router is misconfigured. Go figure.
2^3 * 31 * 647
The only thing that's beyond stupid here is your understanding of the situation. That Microsoft can't bundle IE doesn't mean that OEMs can't bundle any browsers. In fact, OEMs have always wanted to be able to bundle other browsers, but Microsoft has abused its monopoly power to prevent them from doing so (see the Netscape case in the US).
Clever signature text goes here.
OEMs will install the browser of their choice.
Browsers are free nowadays.
Clever signature text goes here.
Absolutely nothing. The problem is that Opera is abusing anti-competition laws in the EU. The intent of anti-monopoly/trust/competition laws is to protect individual consumers, not to give companies a government-enforced weapon to bash each other over the heads with.
That is factually wrong. Competition law of course serves consumer interests as 'perfect competition' is an ideal but it is competitors which always file these complaints. We know that the IE market share is just because of bundling, not because the product is superior. Microsoft abuses one monopoly to get a second one. That is illegal. As a competitor you can simply ignore the unfair disadvantage or you file an antitrust complaint that will be decided on legal grounds. Danger ahead for Microsoft: The burned soil in Brussels.
No the purpose of the laws is to promote competition as perfect competition is a desirable state of the market. If laissez-faire does not create a free market the authorities intervene to improve things. In fact they intervene very little. Microsoft can have its OS monopoly but they cannot abuse it.
Learn the basics of competition law and market economics. Or have a look at what Ordoliberalism means.
Your are joking.
All the Comission wants is that consumers self-select what is the best browser for them. Sounds reasonable to me.
Efficiency of development is not the issue here but of course competition also stimulates standard compliance.
Actually all that Opera wants is Microsoft to behave and embrace open standards. You know that the complaint was a response to what Microsoft did with Open XML.
Well, the fact that you get a product as IE preinstalled artificially destroyed the market for webbrowsers.
Not if Opera has their say, browsers are not...
2^3 * 31 * 647
Management or Programmer or User or OEM or Courts, who should decide whether a piece of code to run in Kernel mode or User mode?
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
How would have software ecosystem fared had U.S. Court of Appeals split Microsoft?
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
Microsoft has used their position in the OS market to affect the quality and timing of third party software written to run on their operating systems. Application and language tools written by Microsoft benefitted from access to proprietary information about the OS that was not available to other developers. An example of this was back when MFC used to be bundled with third party compilers. These compilers, such as Borland, and Watcom... usually had down level versions of MFC. Developers were coerced into buying and using MS tools to get immediate access to supported APIs. The third party compilers were often better code generators, but could not compete because of unfair licensing practices.
There used to be a market for TCP stacks, and popular applications tended to be bundled with them. I realize that the day did come when TCP was a natural to support in the OS, but including the protocols doesn't imply all applications should be part of the OS as well. Just because X Window gets shipped with LINUX doesn't mean XEYES is part of the OS. Know what I mean?
Quite honestly it's not hard to download another browser, and it's not hard to give options when you first boot your computer either (assuming the subject of this debate). However i do believe that Microsoft should be sued for not following the W3C to the fullest. I for one am freakin' tired to consort to IE6, IE7, and IE8 as well as Gecko browsers. Make it all universal, and websites would be easier to build and the internet will evolve at a faster rate. I've only seen two things which I prefer IE7 to handle, but the rest is garbage.
So basically... Programmers and manager should sue Microsoft for being a dick.
When netscape argued that bundling IE with windows was foul play, they had a point. Today? Technology evolves. What was a luxury yesterday is a staple product today. It follows that what was abusive bundling back then is, today, the bare minimum of functionality.
That's a really, really good point... I mean, unless the EU intends for everyone to roll their own FTP or HTTP client, there's got to be *some* way to access stuff over a network that comes "bundled" with the OS, like yum or whatever. I'm sure that if it were a Microsoft "Network-Accessibility Application Downloader," Opera would go crying back to mommy about that.
wimps. what's wrong with the ftp command-line client? :)
how does one get one on their computer?
1) Companies could send out CDs that have their browser. This use to happen back when Netscape and IE were competing against each other. :o
2) Companies can give away CDs to stores with the purpose of the store giving away the CD. This use to happen back in the day.
3) They can sell their browser in stores. Shock horror
Actually Opera's motives are completely selfish. But they happen to advance mine which are aligned with the law.
Opera wants people to have to choose a browser because in that scenario there's a greater chance that they'll choose Opera. This is not in contradiction with the law.
I want people to choose Opera, Firefox, Chrome, anything-but-IE because it reduces Microsoft's monopoly. The law has antitrust laws because they realise that a monopoly results in less competition, which results in less choices for consumers which results in inferior products.
Look at how much IE changed in such a short time after Firefox gained some marketshare. This is because of increased competition. There would be even more changes if there was even more competition. However gaining marketshare against IE is an uphill battle because of their illegal practices.
"WTF!? Der Komputer hat keine browser!?! Ich moechte god damned IE!" *downloads IE.*"
Germany has the biggest market penetration of Firefox (between 35% and 40%), non techie German friends are very clued up about the issues at hand and chose Firefox over IE quite often fore very sound reasons.
If people in Germany did not have IE bundled what will happen is that people will ask their friends and they would be recommended Firefox or other browser quite often.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
There are 2 victims when a monopoly abuses its position in the market: the general public and the monopoly's competitors.
It is funny you suggest that somehow a victim of the apparent wrongdoing of Microsoft is not entitled to search for redress following the normal legal channels.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
On mobile phones, they are mostly making money by creating custom versions for various customers. The actual license price for each shipped browser is less than half a dollar or something.
I think Opera realizes that selling browsers to end-users isn't going to work. Which is why even Opera Mobile 9.5 is free of charge.
I have no idea what this has to do with anything, though. Are you just looking for something to smear Opera with?
Clever signature text goes here.
Apple runs an entire ad campaign capitalizing on "looks all the things you can do with our OS that isn't built into Windows". They're leveraging their OS to push all their proprietary built-in software (including their own browser Safari). Why is it a crime in Microsoft's case, but not in Apple's? With IE market share at all-time lows, they're hardly killing the competition.
Nope. If Opera had their say in a government fiat imposed system, then for sure browsers would be pay-per-[sale|download|whatever]. This is in direct opposition to the crowd such as works on Firefox. The stated goal of the thread was that Microsoft should not supply a browser, so the question is are browsers free at that point but not installed by default, or are they a big-box-store cardboard-box add-on?
I like Opera, I'm just not an Opera fan myself. The interface doesn't ... mesh well with me? Maybe it's been too long since I've looked at it?
2^3 * 31 * 647
They would not, but that's besides the point. A free market would have ensured that browsers became free of charge anyway.
Selling browsers to consumers would never have been very profitable in the long run. Even Netscape was free of charge for consumers.
Depends on when you last looked at it. The interface these days is as clean as anything else, and of course snappier than Firefox because it isn't XUL :)
Clever signature text goes here.