Slashdot Mirror
EU Could Force Bundling Firefox With Windows
Barence writes "The European Commission could force Microsoft to bundle Firefox with future versions of Windows. The revelation came as part of Microsoft's quarterly filing with the Security and Exchange Commission. Among the statements is a clause outlining the penalties being considered by the European watchdog, which recently ruled that Microsoft is harming competition by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. The most interesting situation outlined in the filing would see either Microsoft or computer manufacturers forced to install Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari by default alongside Internet Explorer on new Windows-based PCs."
The most interesting situation outlined in the filing would see either Microsoft or computer manufacturers forced to install Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari by default alongside Internet Explorer on new Windows-based PCs.
What about Maxthon, Flock, Amaya, SeaMonkey or Avant Browser? And that's just to name a few ...
I think you're kind of riding a slippery slope with this mentality--how could another browser (like Firefox's rise to marketshare) ever make it now that the top few are being bundled? You're not fixing anything. I would argue that they shouldn't release it with any browsers default installed and instead give them a package manager (similar to many Linux distributions) that allows them to step through a wizard process to download browsers from trusted sources based on an ever changing list (or conf file if they really want to change that).
My work here is dung.
Why is the EU so hooked up on what browser is being used? Why not e.g. the productivity tools being bundled, or the kind of media center/player to play videos and music?
Sure, from a technical standpoint, it's always nice to see more competition here, as that would probably put pressure on Microsoft in making IE more standards compliant, but... Somehow I don't think the EU is thinking that far.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
If the user is provided with a list like: ....
Choose browser to install:
(1) Internet Explorer 8.9
(2) Firefox 3.6
(3) Opera 9.2
Which one will they choose? I would say most likely, 1, because it's from Microsoft (and it will be top of the list) - even if it is a piece of rubbish.
It would be far better if Microsoft provided a restricted simple browser that could be used to download other software - a sort of graphical version of lynx.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
So when I buy a car in the EU instead of having the factory built radio, are they going to have 3rd pardy radios installed in it as well?
As a web developer, all I want is for MS to make IE compatible with standards. I'm sick of giving their browser special treatment, and I wouldn't if it didn't represent over 50% of my users.
I feel the EU's efforts would be better focused on this issue instead. I think MS consciously chooses to keep IE incompatible with the standards so that sites developed for IE don't work in other browsers that are standards compliant. It's a monopolistic abuse of power.
Windows already has a package-manager sort of thing build in with windows update. I won't argue about how it compares to the various linux offerings, but it would certainly work for this.
They've already removed IE from the Windows Update process - why not put IE and third party browsers up there and let people decide for themselves. Third party drivers are available there, so the process to decide what gets on there is already in place.
It's often been argued that Windows' sheer, crushing ubiquity means that it has an undue and unique influence on the rest of the software field, and therefore must be regulated in a similarly unique manner. If a product expands to the stage where it's as important to your day-to-day life as the power supply, you can bet it's going to be subject to the same sort of oversight.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Great, just what I'd want, more crap pre-installed on a factory built computer. Will they also have to install the yahoo searchbar, google searchbar and msn searchbar in each browser they install? Explorer is too proprietary of a file explorer, they should have to bundle ExplorerXP, freeCommander, and A43. If anything, it seems like all the EU is trying to do is make Windows so unusable that the eventual move to linux will be a godsend.
I am not a *blank*, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
One thing that irked me about XP was that updates were shacked to a web browser and an ActiveX control, which was inelegant (why was a critical OS function not "baked in" to the OS?). If MS aren't allowed to bundle IE, it would mean that they can't assume the existence of a web browser on the system, and might avoid decisions like that in future. I mean, if IE is essential to basic OS functions, it probably shouldn't be, and if it isn't, then there's no real problem with unbundling it. Except I just realised it would leave you with no way of accessing a web site to download a new browser, and including some sort of comprehensive "browser chooser/fetcher" app (or expecting MS to do so) would be equally absurd.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
As a browser Lynx has been surpassed by better text browsers such as Links.
And really, I don't think anyone would have a problem using it.
It's not so much that IE is integrated with windows, but instead Windows ships with a bunch of toolkits, one of which is a toolkit containing library routines for Web access. This includes establishing HTTP connections, doing the low level HTTP get, and a rendering engine to do something with HTML documents.
So this toolkit is used as a primary component of IE. Parts of it is also used by various other OS components, such as Windows Update (uses the HTTP libraries), the File manager (HTML rendering engine), etc. And, obviously, it is the toolkit that is used to build IE. So what Microsoft means by "removing IE will break Windows" is removing IE and it's associated librarys/toolkit will break the other components. But the part of IE that contains "main()" could be removed without affecting anything else.
But now we have another problem. Is a web browser a stand alone application, or is it a necessary part of a modern OS, same as a file manager and command shell? This gets down to the basic debate of what an OS is. Here's my definition:
OS Kernel -- the low level component that connects applications to hardware devices (device drivers), and defines / maintains data structures on those devices (think "file system" layer).
OS Utilities -- programs that allow a user to manipulate data structures the Kernel maintains (such as a file manager), and programs that facilitate user interaction with the hardware the kernel interfaces to (such as a utility to talk to a modem, or send a file to a printer port).
So an operating system is composed of the Kernel and OS Utilities. An Operating Environment (OE) is a combination of an OS with a set of applications that facilitate performing tasks that nearly all users of that computer would need to do. So text editors and paint programs fall in this category (although a text editor may straddle this category and OS Utilities).
Now the question is, where does an ftp client, telnet, ssh, etc. fit in? And does a web browser fit the same category as ftp?
Okay, I'm really concerned. In the last three or four articles we've seen on this topic, we see dozens of posts all repeating the same nonsense that was debunked in the first discussion. Every time the topic comes up people immediately reference legal bundling by other companies (OS X and Safari or Linux and Mplayer). Are people really so incapable of learning and ignorant that they don't understand even the most basic aspects of antitrust abuse? And they all did not see any of the umpteen explanations in previous discussions?
I'm beginning to hope there is some serious astroturfing going on because the alternative is worse.
IMHO, this the Firefox bundling is kind of missing the point; what about bundling OS's with other-company hardware? Is this not also an imposition of 'choice'?
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
Ha, since when have any computer makers REMOVED stuff? My problem isn't with the stuff MS bundles (that's fairly trivial), it's with all the crap-ware that companies like HP, Dell, etc. throw in ON TOP of that. That's where the REAL bloat comes from.
As for IE, I'm just fine with it. As a poster jokingly pointed out above (but made an actual insightful point), how else can you get to Mozilla's website and download Firefox if you don't have Internet Explorer installed?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Actually, Opera's claim is not specifically about Opera. It's about Microsoft breaking the law, which affects everyone, not just Opera.
Opera didn't sue anyone. It is not a lawsuit. Opera simply reported Microsoft's violation of the law to the authorities, similar to what you would do if you witnessed a robbery.
Opera is currently the dominant mobile browser. Opera Software is experiencing massive growth in every single business segment (including the desktop version) every single quarter, is profitable, and has a large pile of cash saved up.
So it's OK for Microsoft to illegally force themselves on people, but it is not OK for someone to protest? Opera never made any demands to be forced on anyone. Opera simply wants actual competition.
Your whole comment demonstrates your lack of knowledge and understanding of the matter. You are ignorant, and are spreading FUD about Opera. This last comment of yours shows that you are either extremely ignorant or extremely dishonest. Apple/iPhone is not a monopoly, and certainly not an illegal one.
Clever signature text goes here.
A calculator doesn't read any files, while a media player or a web browser depend heavily, and set the standards in formats.
I guess nobody cares about the countless applications which depend on installed apps like notepad or iexplorer.exe to get stuff done? Sure, those apps may be badly coded, but they exist and people want to continue running them.
In case anyone is wondering what the bruhaha is all about, every time someone talks about Microsoft and Bundling, someone else has to bring up Apple and bundling, or someone else and bundling, and asking why it's illegal.
These posts come from a variety of sources:
1) Free market zealots who think anti-trust laws are not a good idea (you crazy libertarians know who you are)
2) Anti-Apple/linux/insert-company-here zealots who have a beef to pick with said company.
3) People who can't wrap their heads around what a monopoly is and can't understand law no matter how many times you beat them with the book.
4) A few well placed astro turfers who probably get the discussion going in the first place.
5) Anti-bundling zealots who will slam any bundle that locks in customers.
Only the last one has a decent argument, and it's an ethical argument not a legal one. Legally, Microsoft is a monopoly. They've been declared so by the state. They have also abused their monopoly power by leveraging their dominance in one market (operating systems) to crush competition in another (web browsers).
You can't call Apple a monopoly in Macs because macs compete against PCs, so while I agree unbundling the operating system from the hardware could be a boon to customers in the market, you can't legally force it. You might be able to call Apple a monopoly in the music player business. However, I can download any music from any service that supports the MP3 format and push that into my iPhone/iPod. Music from iTunes music store is AAC which is an open standard and any developer could create a music player for that. Also music is no longer DRMed from the music store so that takes "fairplay" DRM out of the mix.
You might be able to work an argument that Apple needs to open the iPod protocols so that someone can code an alternative to iTunes, because iTunes is very convenient and integrates with the iPod. The iPod is paid hardware, leveraging free software (iTunes). If the iPod had 30% marketshare, I'd say get over it, but it has over 80%, and just maybe someone out there has some innovating to do to make something better than iTunes that can sync music with your iPod.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Ok, I hate Internet Explorer probably more than anyone else in the universe, and would love to see it exorcised from windows... but this is going overboard.
It should be OEMs that choose to install Firefox or another browser. Forcing them to install all other browsers is just as bad as MS forcing them to always install IE with windows.
Besides, perhaps I want a computer with *NO* web browser! (there are plenty of cases where a computer would be used for a specific purpose that doesn't involve web access)
Now, in all fairness, there is a good likelihood that OEMs are still quietly being pressured by MS to not install other browsers or even other non-MS software. If that is the case then this core issue needs to be addressed first.
At most, perhaps OEMs should get some incentive to install Firefox/Opera, but should not be required.
What REALLY needs to happen - IE needs to become a fully 100% add/removable application just like any other normal Windows accessory. Check? It is installed. Unchecked? It is removed. This would be in the standard Windows distribution (not some rare unwanted version like Windows N). CAB installer files would be on the CD or hard drive. OEMs could choose to install IE, if not they would likely install some other browser. That is choice. That is what it should have been like from day 1. (Apps that embed IE need to die off in the long run, but you could go to add/remove programs check the IE box and then they would run)
Opera and Mozilla make money by forwarding searches to Google. Google makes money from searches. If people use Chrome instead of IE, more people use Google, which means that Google makes more money from searches.
Clever signature text goes here.
And yet, the law as it stands, under the interpretation and rulings that are in effect regarding MS in the European market, does call for action to be taken.
It's not about whether competition is "possible". It's about whether two criteria are met:
(1) Does MS have a monopoly position in some market? (Answer: the US and EU both believe MS has a monopoly in the OS market. I disagere with some of the reasoning, but that is the current position of the courts.)
(2) If MS has a monopoly position in some market, are they leveraging it to gain a competitive advantage in another market? (Answer: Bundling the web browser with the OS meets that definition.)
The law doesn't say "you can use a monopoly position in one market to gain advantage in another as long as you don't get 100% market share in the second market", just as the law doesn't say "you can hit people you don't like in the head as long as they don't die". Moreover, the law isn't about protecting Opera, or Firefox, or any other software company; its purpose is to protect consumers by ensuring they get to make an informed choice about the products they buy -- i.e. keeping competition on a level playing field.
Now if you want to argue that the anti-monopoly laws and/or the rulings under which they're applied are flawed, I'd agree; but to blame Opera for expecting the courts to follow through on enforcing the rulings they've made doesn't make any sense at all.
That's an analogy to the manner in which they're forced to use IE. Still confused?
Even more so. Since IE is free, I didn't pay for it. Even if it takes up a couple of hundred megs of disk space, that's a trivial amount seeing as I can't easily buy a disk that's less than 300G anymore so it's not the same as a car taking up space in my driveway...maybe I'd give you a roller skate, but only a single one...and, it's buried in the dirt in that potted plant over there. As for others causing damage and me being responsible, how does that work? Can you point to a single case in which someone utilized an unutilized IE on someone else's machine and that second person had to provide restitution to some third party? Can you explain how that would work legally?
BTW, if someone steals my car and does damage with it, I'm not responsible. Know how I know? Happened to my stepfather a few years back. Someone stole his car, and during the high speed chase slowed down, jumped out and allowed the car to continue down a busy street where it pretty much managed to hit or swipe every parked car for three blocks. So, you'll have to come up with an analogy that closely mirrors reality in order for it to work.
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
I think this is an alarm call for Microsoft to be more proactive on the alternative browser situation.
First, off, let's discuss a couple of nightmare scenarios that Microsoft would like to avoid:
- A vanilla copy of Firefox is bundled with Windows. A large sum of users are connecting to the Internet through this browser and there are quality and security issues which Microsoft now has limited capacity to fix or address. If Mozilla, for instance, complemented the Unix security model well while poorly addressing the Windows security model (completely hypothetical), a third party would then be inserting its own Achilles' Heel into the Windows platform. It's not that it WILL but that it CAN.
- If Microsoft is forced to ship either Chrome or Safari, they will be including products that are actively attacking their product share outside of the web browser market. These are wolves at the door for Microsoft, since Safari is basically a "switch to Mac" ad and Chrome is a "use google instead of Live" ad. I'd also like to point out that Safari does not play nicely with Windows' font rendering or accessibility.
- A litigatively determined requirement leads to a comical freakshow of third party browsers, leading to a free-for-all user experience nightmare, destroying the unity of the system.
My proposals for a solution:
- Microsoft can be proactive on the Mozilla Firefox product right now. They should first focus on having a testing structure for their own release engineered version of Firefox, and second consider placing a few developers on Firefox's security team to look out for their best interests. If Microsoft supports a more "Camino" approach to the Firefox problem, they could support their own open-source fork of the Firefox product that focuses on better integration with the Windows 7 environment while maintaining the standards-oriented compatibility with the web platform. This would be an ideal solution since Windows Live and Silverlight, etc. are already focused on Firefox support for Microsoft plugins, etc. Furthermore, having a presence on the Firefox team would allow Microsoft to address security issues much more quickly while improving face.
- Alternatively, I believe Microsoft could find an even cheaper and less idealistically challenging approach in simply licensing Opera. Why not? With their small team and focus on professional implementation, an Opera-branded Windows 7 specialized browser could be a ticket out of monopoly-town while not entirely losing the benefits of having an in-house browser team. The Opera team is smaller and centrally managed vs. the Firefox team, allowing Microsoft to work very actively alongside the developer in seeing features and compatibility issues worked out (ie Silverlight compatibility). Perhaps a more controllable and less wild product would be the ideal means of keeping control of the quality and security of the Windows Platform while maintaining a competive edge in usability.
Also, what Microsoft stands to lose:
If OEMs are left to deal with the notion of embedding third party browsers instead of Microsoft, they lose their control and their ability to maintain the quality and integrity of their platform. Imagine what OEMs would do with an open source product like Firefox-- there could be Dell Firefox, HP Firefox, etc. Microsoft needs to reign this problem in an preempt it with a workable solution before it falls out of their hands.
And finally, I'd like to underline the importance of maintaining Internet Explorer as a product: It's of the utmost importance that Microsoft offer a supported way to access the web within their platform for both enterprise IT considerations, which Firefox ignores, as well as the process of support and security patching. Keeping Microsoft branding in the web is important for their company's existing relevance in emerging industries. Also, I'd like to add that Microsoft participating in the "standards-based" web game will result in a better documented an
So it's OK for Microsoft to illegally force themselves on people, but it is not OK for someone to protest? Opera never made any demands to be forced on anyone. Opera simply wants actual competition.
If by illegally force you mean put their own software on their own proprietary operating system, then I guess, yes. I am a linux person myself - but making a company put a competitors software on their operating system merely because the majority of users prefer one OS to another is hokey. You're basically punishing a corporation for developing a product people like.
You might say that people would like other products if they tried them, to that I say - then fight your battle where it belongs, in marketing, not in someone else's product.
I think the EU needs to go back to determine if Microsoft still has a monopoly.
Legally, there is no question. They have monopolistic influence by a huge margin.
Microsoft no longer has all that much control even on it's own platform, much less all desktop PCs, given Mac's rapidly increasing market share.
You have fundamentally misunderstood the market. OS X's market share is irrelevant unless Apple starts licensing it to OEMs or offering large site licenses on generic hardware. If Dell (and other OEM customers) can't license OS X to put on the systems they ship, it is not in the market and does not matter to MS's influence.
Furthermore, if monopolies are characterized by a lack of competition for a good or service, then why is there a huge rise in the popularity of different web browsers.
Again, you've fundamentally misunderstood the second market involved. MS can have 5% of the browser market and it doesn't make a difference to this case. MS is being accused of using their monopoly on desktop OS's to skew the Web browser market. It doesn't matter if they have monopoly influence in the Web browser market or not.
Microsoft has lost desktop PC marketshare, lost broswer share, lost laptop share. If they held a monopoly in the 90s, it's clear to me they no longer do.
You seem a bit confused as to what the term "monopoly" means in the legal sense and to economists. You also seem a bit confused about what markets are involved and how their actions in tying those markets constitute antitrust abuse.
And if you ask most folks in the Valley now, they don't fear Microsoft anymore either.
Ask MS's customers how much influence MS has. They are the measure. Can the CEO Dell or HP tell MS to go take a flying leap and not be fired? I thought not.