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.
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.
Don't forget to also bundle my browser, MSBlastWorm32.exe! Tell all the naive people that it's the hip new botnet way to see the interweb!
My work here is dung.
... computer manufacturers forced to install Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari by default alongside Internet Explorer on new Windows-based PCs.
And also Lynx, I would bring me great joy to see a video of an average Windows user trying to use Lynx.
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!
me how Internet Explorer is such a big deal for the EU. IE is free. Microsoft is bundling their browser with their OS. KDE bundles Konqueror. Gnome has Epiphany. There are on binaries for Windows for either of them. Is that bad? Everyone has a choice to download the equally free Firefox for any OS. If you want to go after Microsoft, then go after them for the things that are truly evil. The monopolization. The insane licensing prices. The unfixed bugs. The embrace, extend and extinguish. And the countless other things. Forcing vendors to bundle other browsers won't do anything. Do you really think Microsoft fears this?
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
There should be Windows-Distros. Each distro has its own set of software installed, and the manufacturor chooses which distro's of Windows he offers. E.g. a manufactorer can create a distro with firefox and one with chrome, and let the user choose which distro he wants. I think a distro with IE (as long as there also exist others to choose from), or with multiple browsers (including or not including IE amongst them), should also be allowed. This can be applied to other software too, e.g. a distro of Windows with Audacity, Gimp, OpenOffice, ... preinstalled.
there is nothing to get amazed. KDE, Gnome any other distro that bundles a single browser to their product will probably be asked to bundle more.
this is not an 'equality' matter. this is a matter of monopoly. microsoft is almost a practical monopoly in the market. therefore, anittrust laws apply to it. if linux had the same place, and had a virtual monopoly, they would go after it first.
antitrust laws are not fair. they are not supposed to be fair. they should not be fair. they are equalizing moves that are used to whack down on the biggest shareholder in a market if they do anything wrong, illegal, or unethical. any corporation that is vying for the top market positions has to make peace with that fact, and get its act together. microsoft didnt. it doesnt have an affinity for coherent, orderly, ethical conduct.
Read radical news here
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
Bundle Windows with Firefox instead.
How 'bout requiring that each copy of Vista ship with a Ubuntu disk labeled 'Vista Service Pack 2'.
[Insert pithy quote here]
I can see it now... the Linux masses (or /. crowd) asking for alternatives to everything...
Notepad? Bundle Vi/Emacs for windows
MediaPlayer... bundle VLC & mplayer
Solitaire...
Instant Messenger? Bundle Pigdin...
MSPaint? Bundle GIMP
And we complain about BLOAT now? Wait till you see all the crap that gets bundled. And the MS products will still get used more? Why, because Joe Sixpack will look at the NAMES of the applications and won't have to guess what they do? Can you look at 99% of the linux apps out there and guess what they do? Notepad/MediaPlayer/Instant Messenger/MS Paint are pretty obvious what they do. GIMP? I'm not explaining that one.
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?
and prefer Mozilla Firefox, both Windows and IE are Microsoft products and they have every right to bundle their products. Also, why Firefox? What right does the EU have to decide Firefox is what the people want? Why not Chrome or Safari or Opera? You bundle in Firefox instead of IE, you're still hurting the competition. Some people are just going to use what they're given, what does it matter WHICH one comes bundled?
Also, Firefox isn't supported by Microsoft. Why would MS release Windows bundled with programs they do not support?
Yea... Please install N different browsers with Windows. I didn't think all the default services took up enough system resources to begin with.
I don't know why they would try to force the user to have X browsers rather than allowing user to have equal opportunity to pick from any browser. This is the opposite of enforcing a competitive market - it's encouraging of a oligopolistic market.
and work on Firefox instead.
Seriously, chrome has some nice features but I can't use it as my workhorse browser. I'm not talking about advanced features or plugins. Just simple stuff.
I like how it manages tabs as a separate process that releases memory back to the OS when it's closed. Firefox could really benefit from it. But there are so many simple things missing.
Now I have 2-3 browsers running all the time.
Firefox for my main surfing.
Chrome, if I want to look something up and not worry about Firefox getting bloated and having to restart it.
IE when I'm developing sites.
If Google worked on putting some of the good features of Chrome into Firefox, you wouldn't have to force anyone to use Firefox.
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.
This would:
OK but if the system doesn't come with a web browser to begin with, how do I install FF ? I like the idea of this being a setup wizard. On first boot it asks which browser you want to install, downloads the appropriate files, and installs. By all means have IE as default, but allow the user to select another browser if so desired. This would also I hope get rid of the 10 000 (slight exaggeration) different browser add-ons commonly found on new systems.
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?
Note: I am an Apple user. If the EU required MS to bundle other browsers, then should they force Apple to do the same? And yes, I know Safari is not tied into the OS like IE is.
Conservative, mod down for violating
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?
The thing is, I, for one don't want five browsers put on my machine by an OS. It's bad enough the clutter they do put on... One browser, let it be IE and then I will go download FF. I choose that way. I'm pissed enough that iTunes keeps trying to shove safari on my machine that I have blocked iTunes. More browsers... whoopie! Why not add everybody's tool bars to the OS too, and everyone's messenger service... and how about five or six calculators...
As for the argument that most people will only use what came with the machine, well, you can't legislate against stupidity. I doubt pre-bundling everybody's browser into the OS install package will help. This is just legislators trying to do something no one cares about so that they will look like they are doing something while taking no politcal risk.
Why should MS be forced to do anything other than make other browsers usable on their OS as the default browser. As far as I have seen this has been working for years. Oh, occasionally I might run into something that does launch IE rather than my default, but it's so infrequent that I could care less and all this time and money being wasted requiring more is silly.
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?
Ok, I hate IE as much as any other self-respecting geek, but I also hate bloat. Bundling 4 or 5 browsers with Windows just doesn't make sense. You're duplicating what most users will consider exactly the same functionality several times over!
If they set it up so that the setup (or the computer store if you're buying a pre-loaded system) will optionally install only the browsers you want, this could be a good thing. Having them all installed by default, though... not so much.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
So what happens when Google OS is released in the EU? Will they be required to bundle IE?
What exactly is the point of all this? Web browsers haven't had a retail value in over a decade. The EU certainly knows how to stage an exciting race for zero revenue. I guess they have to keep their lawyers employed somehow.
Maybe they should also include info on how to get OpenOffice, Star Office or access to Google Documents. Also along with Windows Media Player they should include VLC, iTunes, Divx ..... hey how about dual boot with Linux, BSD, OSX?
Really? Yes I believe Microsoft has a clear advantage bundling IE with Windows but bloating the install up with tons of various other software is not the way to go.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Franklin
"Ok, I hate IE as much as any other self-respecting geek, but I also hate bloat"
..
Your life must be very circumspect if you have to expend energy hating a browser. Firefox comes in at about 70mgb, hardly going to take up much room and it isn't stealing process time in the background when it isn't running
davecb5620@gmail.com
Maxthon and Avant are just IE shells, so they shouldn't be considered.
SeaMonkey isn't yet ready for prime time (2.0 is not release-worthy and 1.x is woefully outdated).
Amaya is meant as a tech demo and to check code, not as a daily browser.
The only one on your list that would be considered would be Flock.
Realistically, Safari should be removed from the original list because it's such a clusterfuck on Windows.
Of course, you're right... it's all moot and a rather slippery slope.
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
Why bother.
At the Rate IE is losing market share, it's only a matter of time before Firefox has a solid share of the browser market.
And it's not like Opera will take up the slack anyways. MS would side with Firefox anyday over the other competition if it was forced to bundle.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
This makes no sense. I thought the whole point of this was to stop bundling altogether. Instead during setup of Windows why not offer the choice in the install for the preferred software:
Choose Your Media Player:
Windows Media Player 11
VLC Media Player
MPlayer
Choose your Email Application:
Outlook Express
Thunderbird
Eudora
Choose your Browser:
Microsoft Internet Explorer
Firefox
Opera
Chrome
Now people are aware that they have a choice. The problem with bundling is that it makes it harder for someone to be aware of the fact that choice exists. So whether Windows ships with IE or ships with Firefox, if they aren't made aware that a choice exists between the two, then the whole endeavor was for nothing.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
"Maybe they should also include info on how to get OpenOffice, Star Office .. Also along with Windows Media Player they should include VLC, iTunes, Divx"
Good idea, they should include all this software and the OEMs pay a percentage to the developers.
davecb5620@gmail.com
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.
The linked article is rather sensationalized, the summary even more so
Here's the actual text. It's from Microsoft's own SEC filings, in the "Contingencies" section of the notes, not from the EU - this is Microsoft's opinion of what the European Commission might require, not something from the Comission itsself.
Note, in particular, no mention of specific other browsers.
...or am I missing something?
Why just firefox and not a slew of different browsers. By doing so, they are promoting more dependence on one browser, for better or worse, and not letting the people decide.
I like firefox, but it still doesn't mean we shouldn't have a choice if we are going to be forced to have one in the bundled software.
Duh! Apple isn't a monopoly.
No sig today...
This would be an excellent chance for Microsoft to "extend" firefox with, uh, perhaps support for ActiveX controls and "Enhanced Rendering"!
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
IE with Windows is a monopoly?
No, Windows is a monopoly in the desktop OS market as several courts have already ruled. Since it is illegal to tie products from separate, pre-existing markets with products from a monopolized market, bundling IE with Windows is blatantly illegal.
Why isn't the EU going after Apple? And on that note, why am I FORCED to use Safari on my iPod Touch?
They're considering it with regard to iPods and iTunes, but iPods probably don't constitute a monopoly in the EU.
Me thinks the EU needs to take a good long look at Apple if they are going to sanction Microsoft!
They are looking, but since the case against Apple is fairly weak, while the one against MS is open and shut and has lasted longer, expect to see them convict MS first by several years at least.
Companies are free to support their own products however they like, usually. The issue with MS is that their product is essentially a requirement for the vast majority of hardware and software used and owned by persons, businesses, and government agencies, and therefore the decisions have a uniquely powerful effect on their competitors and the marketplace as a whole. If Apple forced OSX users to use iWork, it'd be controlling maybe an eighth of the computing world's word processor choice. If MS forced Windows users to use MS Office, it'd be controlling about seven eighths. Some estimates put it closer to 90%. If you consider how saturated business and government work is with Windows, then their actions are even more significant.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
No, Apple isn't a monopoly... they are just your average cult. they brainwash you into thinking they are the best thing ever, and if you dare oppose them, they will unleash FINDER to whoop your ass
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The EU should fine M$ 1 billion dollars per day for non-compliance. M$ is a convicted monopolist and they have threatened others lives. How should M$ comply? By GPLing all code and file formats then permanently shutting their doors.
Once that is done M$ should hand over their execs to the authorities in the EU. I can hardly wait until the demise of M$.
--
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
bwahahahahahahahaha.
Trackball users will be first against the wall.
How about just installing wget by default, and letting users download the browser of their choice? It would be trivial to implement a GUI wrapper around wget to let you select from links to many different browsers. Bundling is bad, and pre-installing many different browsers is a waste of disk space unless there is an easy method to remove every browser except the one you want. (The problem with this is that you probably need at least 1 browser just to configure your internet connection. I only use IE as a tool for downloading firefox and for those sites stupid enough to use IE-specific javascript myself, so I don't really see what the problem is.)
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
*sigh*
This tired argument is brought up every time a Microsoft anti-trust article is posted. The difference is that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. It is not bundling a browser with your OS that is illegal--it is abusing your monopoly in one domain to hamper competition in another domain that is illegal.
Microsoft had/has a near-monopoly in the OS market. They were accused of abusing that monopoly to hamper competition in other markets (e.g. web browsers, media players). They were found guilty of those actions in multiple jurisdictions (US, EU, ...). That is why action is being taken against them.
If Apple were to do the same thing (abuse their monopoly in one market to hamper competition in another), they would be subject to the same laws. (And indeed the EU has launched antitrust probes into iTunes...)
How is bundling Firefox going to be any different from bundling IE?
Dont force anybody to use any browser.
Give them a choice.
Bundle none of the browsers,or bundle ALL of the leading browsers and let people try them all out before deciding.
Of course that gets kind of complicated and time consuming for most people.
I would suggest that on first startup, a window pops up as soon as you have a network connection displaying choices to download Firefox, IE, or Opera, with another option to show more of the less used browsers.
And maybe a "shut up microsoft and let me install what I want by myself" option.
I don't understand all the hubbub either. So MS bundles a browser with their operating system ... so what?
Back in the DOS days, word processing software didn't have a spellchecker built in. You had to buy a separate spellchecker if you wanted that functionality and the spellchecker companies had a nice little profit centre for themselves. Then one day, word processing software started coming with a spellchecker built right in! Sure it was bad for the people selling spellcheckers, but it was a win for the consumer.
Operating systems evolve ... they start including things that weren't included in the past ... things like internet browsers. If the (free, bundled, zero cost) browser doesn't suit your needs or tastes, it takes less than 5 minutes to download and install Firefox or Chrome.
Because when Microsoft began to bundle IE on their OS they effectively killed off anybody who was making money selling browsers. What's more MS took issue with the fact that some PC manufacturers wanted to ship Windows pre installed on their PCs with a non MS browser set as the default browser. Entire branches of the software industry still live in fear of the day that Microsoft sees profit in moving into their particular market segment and the PHBs in Redmond decide to increase Microsoft's market share the quickest way they know, by bundling the relevant Microsoft product with Windows which effectively slaughters the competition. You may argue that the browser wars are ancient history in computing terms and you would be right but the precedent the Netscape affair set is still very real even if it has become more difficult for Microsoft to pull stunts like that nowadays. I think it is pretty rediculous to force Microsoft or PC manufacturers to bundle all the common browsers on the market: Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari etc.. Internet Explorer with Windows by default. I find the suggestion more reasonably that a PC manufacturer should be able to bundle any software he wants pre-installed on Windows with his PCs. This should be the case even if this PC manufacturer's opinions of what should be pre-installed conflicts with Microsoft's marketing strategies for IE or any other MS software Microsoft has decided to 'bundle' with Windows as a shortcut to gaining market share. Basically PC manufacturers should be able to bundle alternative software with the Windows they ship on their machines and even leave out the Microsoft alternative if they see a reason to do so. Most users will use the software pre-installed on the machine. Installing Firefox or some other alternative to the software MS bundles with Windows isn't necessarily second nature to the average user... strange as that may seem to some nerds.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
You should seek professional psychiatric help.
We don't need Firefox or Opera bundled alongside IE. We need to be able to install Firefox or Opera instead of IE. Whether the user or the OEM does it, the need is to be able to choose a browser other than IE, not just one in addition to IE.
Still, you can't saction one company for doing it and let others get away with it just based on their size. I'm not a M$ supporter or fanboy, I'm just pointing out the logic here. If your going to spank company A for bundling software, you have to spank companies B, C, and D as well.
1 - Microsoft will have to agree to install Firefox by default in the EU to avoid even more fines.
2 - They will insist that IE is still installed too, as it's baked so deep into Windows that it'd require a hefty rewrite to remove, not to mention their spyware / update system demands Active X, which only they know how to implement.
3 - They will insist on installing it themselves, and install a modified version which will be buggy as hell, take up oodles of resources and crash like a plane which finds it's engines mysteriously vanish mid-flight.
4 - As part of the modified Firefox all crashes will point to microsoft.com "advice" about how IE is perfect and crash-free, and advise them to start using it.
5 - They'll also insist that IE is the default browser, even if a broken Firefox is there too.
6 - They'll disable all of the security features of their Firefox build, make some defaults unable to be changed, all to give people a bad impression of Firefox.
7 - They'll start the FUD campaign exposing the flaws (they added) against their magnificent IE.
8 - They'll insist that the Firefox pre-installed is the very same as everyone else's Firefox, so all the flaws are Mozilla's, not theirs.
9 - In a few years another lawsuit will reveal this collusion, and history will start to repeat again......as it always does with Microsoft.
To the M$ shills astroturfung at /.
Feel free to mark this as flamebait, many companies make mistakes and learn from them. Many companies have bad leadership and make big mistakes; in most cases the company starts to change after being punished and the CEO involved is removed. Microsoft are 100% unrepentant in everything they do, they see nothing wrong in what they do, the only thing they see as "wrong" is people standing up to them and holding them to account. They deserve NO benefit of the doubt.
I don't know if Microsoft fears this, but if people get accustomed to using cross-platform applications, it makes the OS they use less important.
Think what it would mean for Windows if most people used Firefox and OpenOffice. Suddenly, 90% of their everyday tasks could be done in Linux with little change to their work habits.
IE (IExplore.exe) is a application that displays the menu bar at the top of the screen, and controls some registry settings.
The functionality that renders the webpages from code to a GUI display is in shared libraries such as inetres.dll, Mshtml.dll, and so on.
This is why you can launch Explorer and while at c:\ you can type in http:\\slashdot.org and it renders the webpage in Explorer (Not Internet Explorer.)
Outlook uses these same libraries to display HTML content in e-mail. You can browse the Internet through Outlook too, never opening Internet Explorer.
I can embed the webbrowser control in my VB programs and have these shared libraries render pages. I can even build my own web browser GUI over these shared libraries.
So can Microsoft remove IE from Windows? That depends on what your definition of removing IE is.
The problem is that when Microsoft added IE for free as part of the OS, they killed Netscape which was selling a browser. A much better browser in my opinion. I don't think Microsoft should be forced to install and support a 3rd party browser. But since they are a monopoly who has abused this particular application, I can see forcing them to pay for promotion of 3rd party browsers. I don't think they should focus on one browser though. While I like Firefox, others like Opera. It should be neutral.
The importance of the web browser is self evident, to argue with such idiotic examples is most disingenuous.
You shoot down your own "argument" by mentioning the Media Player. The EU already provided provisions to try to unbundle the media player in Windows, provisions that were half assed and unsuccessful...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Apple is not a monopoly player in the OS market using it to obtain a monopoly in the browser market. This is what the antitrust laws are about: not about preventing monopolies, but about preventing the abuse of monopoly position in one market to gain an an unfair advantage in another.
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
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.
they want their lawsuit back.
Seriously EU, give it up, you've beaten this horse to death. Since all the browsers are free, how is anybody really gaining anything, competition wise?
Not to mention, the sheeple who don't know enough to go to the Firefox/Opera/etc website to get the browser themselves are just going to choose IE if the installer asks them a question anyways.
Say you have 100% market share. You let a "competitor" exist which would sell just a few boxes of a competing product for a very high price ... in fact you could just buy them yourself. Magic! No monopoly!
Thankfully regulators are not that stupid.
For most intents and purposes, a monopoly in Europe starts at 50% market share. France Telecom for instance is for instance hovering at 49.9% in many markets (mobile phone, ADSL ...) in its native market. It's not a coincidence. They would be immediately and more drastically regulated if they did. The ARCEP (~ FCC) would have the authority to set its prices.
The purpose of those monopoly rules is to ensure there is fair competition. It's quite unfortunate that, so far, Microsoft has been given a free ride. Glad to see it's changing, even if only so slightly.
the decision to force ie away from people. All this will do is confuse my gran (et al.). The decision would have been better placed to force MS to improce ie with a legally binding schedule agreed by apple, mozilla, microsoft and opera as to where browsers should ALL be in a years time. Fines for those that cannot achieve it. To ensure the "lowly" market holders don't get done over the standard could be the LCD of the "other" three. No-one loses out. Everyone gains.
But... but... Apple IS the best thing ever, and how dare you oppose them!
Well ok, not everything from Apple is good. The finder is just okay.
No, no... the finder is not okay... it sucks!
Man, what am I saying... Finder is terrible!
And he can't sing good either!
Get him away! Booo! /old guys from the Muppet Show
Not everybody uses a "productivity tool." Or a media center / player. Not even a word processor.
But everybody uses a browser. Using the internet means using a browser at some point.
Plus, Microsoft has clearly been a hindrance to web development and standards by letting IE6 rot for 5 years. Even IE7 and IE8 are behind the times. They suck rock. Yet they still have huge market share due to the monopoly power.
This is one of the clear areas where the EU has a mandate to enforce cooperation, competition in the marketplace and interoperability.
The EU should for PC manufacturers to include another OS (say, a Linux distro).
Bert
Who thinks that the most evident proof of monopoly abuse is that dual boot systems are not available on the market.
Is to stop bundling of software with hardware. When you buy a computer, you would get two tickets, one for the computer hardware, and one for the operating system plus applications. And you would have by law the option to buy one without the other. This would have many advantages.
- You would know exactly how much you pay for windows, so you would be able to make a judgement about utility vs price.
- it would be your call whether to purchase windows or something else when you buy a computer. Right now, that's not the case, most of the time you will not have the option not to buy windows.
- It would make much more difficult for Microsoft to link pricing with exclusive contracts, as the operating system would be chosen by the buyer and not the computer maker.
I think that would work, and considering the different remedies that have been looked at in order to solve the abuse of monopoly position by Microsoft, I think it is not too harsh compared to breaking up the company or forcing some competing software into Microsoft installation disks.
Once Microsoft stops abusing its monopoly, I have nothing against them bundling whatever browser they fancy on their OS.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
Definitely. OEMs should decide which browser to bundle. Microsoft broke the law, which is why their browser activities are being targeted. Except letting OEMs decide would not "stick to the EU". It would actually be great!
No need. OEMs will install a browser.
Whether they lock down "shit" or not is irrelevant to whether they are a monopoly or not.
False. MS is guilty of abusing its monopoly in one market to destroy competition in a different market.
You are either extremely ignorant or a Microsoft shill. You need to look up monopolies, as defined by law. By law, only a 60-70% market share is required to be considered a monopoly.
Clever signature text goes here.
No, because the bundling is not the main problem here. It is illegal to tie products from different pre-existing markets with products from a monopolized market. Thus, bundling IE with windows is against the law.
Please pay attention. Educate yourself before spouting nonsense.
Clever signature text goes here.
I am normally not the one to defend Microsoft, as I think the company, their business practices and almost all of their products suck bad. But I think shipping Windows without a default web browser, or to force Microsoft to bundle in Firefox, Safari or some other browser is problematic and actually unfair. Yes, unfair, because how can Microsoft be responsible for other people's products? Instead, the way to go in my mind is clear: As long as Microsoft doesn't make their own PC hardware, why not simply outlaw the sale of PCs with Windows pre-installed? The customer has a right to choose whether he or she should have Windows, some flavor of Linux or maybe FreeBSD on a new machine. You could argue that Apple should be forced to unbundle Mac OS X so you could install that system on any PC, but I believe that's different: the Mac OS and Apple's hardware can be seen as ONE integrated product, whereas the basic PC is a modular product: hardware plus OS and bundled apps. Unbundling Windows would force Microsoft to a) build their own machines and/or b) sell Windows ONLY in unbundled versions. The latter case would be very beneficial for customers.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
That's basically how it works in every other areas. Mergers, for instance, have been denied by the EU for less than that.
Microsoft has a market share > 90% in many areas, so it's pretty open and shut; to claim otherwise is ludicrous.
Pot, kettle, black. You completely miss the point and ignore the facts, then proceed to spew out irrelevant nonsense. Way to go. How about educating yourself before commenting?
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.
AOL/Time Warner was forced by the FTC (iirc) to keep ICQ and AIM separate, so there's nothing new here.
Beyond file associations, I doubt it uses any. Everything is stored in its preference system, which is stored in prefs.js
If they offer a choice, the average user is going to choose internet explorer anyway. The reason is simple... The name.
given a choice of:
Internet Explorer
Firefox
Chrome
Opera
Safari
Your average user is going to think, "I want to go on the internet, the program there that most obviously does that is Internet Explorer." The only way a browser is ever going to knock out Internet Explorers dominance with the uneducated is by being named "The InterWebs" (c) 2009 theeddie55
Blazing Spiders
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"
I wonder IF they are intentionally bringing up this browser nonsense to help Microsoft keeping formats and protocols hidden as long as possible. I'm very curious of it.
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)
those definitions were made in age where no concept of 'software' or 'lock-in' could ever be imagined. now there is.
any software that creates a lock-in situation for customers should be accepted as a scaled monopoly, and antitrust laws should apply.
monopoly is a lack of choice. virtually, or practically. the fact that you can choose to renovate your entire i.t. infrastructure by spending half of your company's assets in some occasions, and even totally reeducate workforce or fire & recruit the i.t. staff from scratch does not make it any more so that you actually have a choice.
Read radical news here
It's easy to do this without bloat. The people whining about bloat haven't got their brains engaged. The files on the install disk are compressed. Just let the installer offer a choice of either/both browsers. The cost in space on the DVD is what...5 -10 MB absolute max. Vista only comes on DVD and doesn't even use 3 GB of what's available, there is plenty of DVD capacity going to waste. Cost to the end user: 0 financially and 0 in HDD space if desired. Cost to Microsoft/OEMs: close to 0. The Mozilla installer needs to be integrated into the Vista installer so there's an afternoon's work for someone to do that, add an extra menu box and check it works. The issue of media players might be more difficult because so many OEMs have their own deals with 3rd party vendors for multimedia players/media centre applications. They might object to a competing player being bundled.
PROVIDING they unbundle Google from Firefox. To be quite honest, I'm sick and tired of disinfecting my systems of Google and their insidious bloody software. Toolbars, "safe"browsing, default search boxes et. al. Rein those bastards in at the same time and I'll believe you're treating all comers fairly. Until such time, I'll continue to believe that the EU and Google are in bed together to own/restrict/"monetize" (I hate that word, but it is the only one that fits) the Internet in Europe to the detriment of European users. Don't be evil my left knacker!
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
That was one nice thing that they fixed in Vista - the update mechanism is tied to a tool rather than to the browser and an ActiveX application.
Now I can only hope they untie the browser from the OS in Windows 7, but I don't think that's going to happen.
What? Only a handful of web browsers? COME ON MAN! I want at least 15 browsers including Nutscrape 4.7, maybe five or six 2-D graphics applications, about 80 video and music players, four office suites, 10 instant messaging clients, and just about everything else there's a MS version of. I WANT OPTIONS! Hard drive space? Whatevah that is cheap as free. Boot times? Hey I gotta go pee sometime don't I? Customized installs? AS IF!
No seriously, what the fuck, I spend enough time deleting shit I'm not going to use from any newly purchased computer already. I don't want to have to delete yet MORE. Damn, if they want to punish MS they don't have to punish me while they're at it -_-
I like basketball!!1!
I think the whole issue is,"How can i rid me of microsoft internet explorer once and for all?"
;
I've been using Firefox for two years now, and I also use firefox/thunderbird at work. In my small experience, it's happened time and again that I install firefox, erase the IE icon from the desktop, and lo! after some winXP update, if I click a link it starts in Microsoft internet explorer, which is NOT the default browser.
For the record, it never happened that after some update the link started in Opera, or Safari. So the problem is twofold:
1. the consumer COULD be allowed a choice about which browser install as default
2. Once you pick, Microsoft should be forbidden to meddle.
BTW, the relative success of Firefox et al. is also getting MS off the hook for penalties for his defective products, even if I must confess that i laugh my head off thinking of Ballmer saying in court:" you see judge, if the accuser wanted internet security he should have used Firefox!!!!!"
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
Have you ever heard of pronouns?
What pronoun do you use for a corporation? It? They? She? He? In this case, probably "we."
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.
How is anyone forced to use IE, then? Since I can install any browser I want on my copy of Windows, I'm certainly not forced to use IE (excepting the times when FF doesn't work properly with a website), I can use my browser of choice. Just because it's installed in the OS doesn't mean I have to use it.
No one is forcing you to drive the car. But you WILL pay for the car, and you WILL keep it in your driveway. If someone picks the locks and causes damage with it, you WILL be held responsible.
That's an analogy to the manner in which they're forced to use IE. Still confused?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
and we should care why? Monopoly schnopoly. Doesn't friggin matter.
Antitrust: Commission confirms sending a Statement of Objections to Microsoft on the tying of Internet Explorer to Windows
So the text you quote, "the Commission is considering ordering Microsoft and OEMs to obligate users to choose a particular browser when setting up a new PC" is IMHO NOT evident from the Commission's press release. Maybe it's in the actual Statement of Objections, otherwise.. sounds like Microsoft lying to the SEC and putting words in the Commissioner's mouth.
If you'd change "a particular browser" to "any browser of their choice" the sentence would probably be correct (IANAL btw).
If that "Statement of Objections" is public I'll try to find a link to that, too. The level of ignorance and FUD here today is a bit worrying, otherwise :-)
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Important points that I had forgotten. That does make me wonder whether MS could offer up an API to let any HTML rendering engine run at the heart of Windows, but that's probably getting a bit wacky.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Go back to 1996. As part of some sort of agreement, Microsoft included AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, and/or WOW on the Win95B, Win98, and WinMe installation CDs. This was because somebody was complaining about Microsoft using their OS to sell MSN.
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
Bundling software (1) isn't the issue at stake. Bundling software as a monopoly (2) isn't even the issue. Bundling software as a monopoly in a manner which has demonstrably harmed the market (3) is what is being claimed here. There is no law against 1 or 2, there are laws against 3.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
What you are writing here is basically a red herring because it does not address the actual issue. It is illegal to tie products from different pre-existing markets with products from a monopolized market. Thus, bundling IE with windows is against the law.
That said, I will respond to this, just for your benefit. I did point out specifically that:
"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."
Interesting how Opera is actually dominant in markets with actual competition, isn't it?
As for Firefox, even Mozilla disagrees with your assertion:
"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field. That tilt comes with the distribution channel - default status for the OS bundled Web browser."
I agree. Which is why Microsoft shouldn't bundle any browser. Windows should simply be without a browser. The OEM should do the browser bundling.
Minor detail. OEMs will support they browser they choose. Updates can happen in many ways. Most browsers these days update themselves automatically anyway.
How often does IE update? How often does Windows update? Rather a lot. So do manufacturers absorb the cost to redo their disk images today?
No, the OEM picks the browser. Your PC will definitely come with a browser. It just won't be Microsoft choosing which one.
Clever signature text goes here.
How?
Clever signature text goes here.
Your insane conspiracy theories are not lending credibility to your argument.
It is illegal to tie products from different pre-existing markets with products from a monopolized market. Thus, bundling IE with windows is against the law. Why should the EU not go after Microsoft for breaking the law?
The US did this too, remember? What kind of insane conspiracy theory are you going to make up there since you can't expose your xenophobia against your own country?
Nice way to dodget the issue there. Everyone uses a browser. And Microsoft has blocked web development by leaving IE6 out there for many years with no development what so ever. IE7 is sub-par when it comes to standards and web development as well, and still has a huge market share due to Microsoft's monopoly power.
Who mentioned children? The fact is that Microsoft broke the law. End of story.
Clever signature text goes here.
I fail to see how forcing the bundling of a different browser(s) solves the problem. It will only result in a worsened out of box experience for the end user (which is already incredibly horrid when it comes to big box Windows PCs) in that it forces them to make an uninformed decision the first time they want to connect to the web.
If the user knows the difference between browsers, it's a non-issue since they can just go download their choice straight away which will usually result in it becoming default during the installation. Problem solved. If they have no idea they'll just be irked and pick the first one on the list.
The solution, IMO, would seem to be forcing Microsoft to ditch the "compatibility mode" in IE and stick to the standards so that new IE is as broken on sites coded to work with previous versions of IE as any other browser. Then, prohibit them from making any further "extensions" to the specs which caused the problem to begin with.
A unified, standard plug-in model to prohibit the use of ActiveX on web sites would also be nice.
Such a decision may wreak havoc with many websites but that's the price of progress and in the end it means all browsers can compete strictly on their merits.
Have you ever heard of pronouns?
What pronoun do you use for a corporation? It? They? She? He? In this case, probably "we."
I think "it" would help reinforce the idea that it's an artificial, amoral, non-human entity. The only flaw is that it's also grammatically acceptable to use "it" to describe animals, and animals most definitely have loyalties. So, I intend no insult to swine or other animals when I refer to a corporation as "it".
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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
But then Microsoft would have to change it's methodology for updates. WindowsUpdates only works with IE.
Don't get me wrong, I think unbundling IE from windows is a Good Thing, but I think we need to think carefully about the ramifications. Microsoft forces windows users to use IE in more ways than just one.
I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
That's not how it works in ANY other market. Mergers have been denied, but not because of >50% market share. That's just absurd.
It seems that only 1,787 copies of Windows XP N were sold so far in 2006. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/european/04-24-06windowsxpnsalesfs.mspx
Rafael Vargas - http://rafavargas.es
I don't have any information either way.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
microsoft doesnt have any special laws written against them to prevent them from 'competing' in eu. they are being tried for antitrust laws which apply to every business entity. the 'competing' in the preceding sentence is in quotes, because what microsoft does is not competing. they are convicted monopolists and foulplayers, multiple times. many eu countries' state and governments are already on linux ... hence the title of this comment.
Read radical news here
XP N sales represent 0.005 percent (1/20,000th of one percent) of overall XP sales in Europe
.005 is statistically close enough to be classified as "none". How many millions of dollars did those 1,787 copies cost the EU? It's easily argued that the EU did more harm to its constituency than MS did.
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
they are giving back a cut of the money they have crookedly acquired. what's the problem ? what goes around comes around.
Read radical news here
I think the DOJ got it right with the first verdict: break up Microsoft. Have one company continue to develop Microsoft Windows, and another can develop their applications and whatever else. That way, Windows is just Windows until it hits the OEM. And MS applications would no longer have any reason to run on only one platform. That way, we wouldn't need to talk about bundling every browser in existence to negate the advantage that IE has over the others.
Of course the EU doesn't have the power to break up a US based corporation, and the DOJ blew the one chance they had to create a competitive market for desktop applications and operating systems. The only thing that has brought some semblance of competition back to the market is Microsoft's own inability to deal with change, and their own incompetence.
Hmm, what else do we need to remove?
First of all, Notepad has to go, but even more importantly we need to lose that OpenOffice killer Wordpad.
Paint has to go too. Maybe Adobe will finally see some Photoshop sales when that happens.
Actually, it might just be easier to lose the entire Accessories folder. But that still leaves built in Zip archive support. So it seems our only solution is to remove Windows Explorer! We can kill two birds with one stone there, as now people will also have a choice of desktop environment.
Oh crap, I just realized that Windows forces people to use FAT, FAT32, or NTFS. We need more choice of file system. Hmm... well I guess this only means one thing. We need to have Microsoft remove the Windows kernel! That will make competition perfectly fair for absolutely everyone (...except Microsoft... but no one cares because they are the spawn of the devil...)
Seriously... should we next force Coke to include a can of Pepsi in every 6-pack?
I know, let's just remove IE from Windows entirely... oh, wait, how would people go download Firefox or Safari or Chrome then?
This crap just drives me nuts... an OS needs to have a browser included. The fact that so many people stay with IE isn't a result of evil dominance, it's a result of people being to lazy to install something new. MS is in no way stopping people from using FF or GC or AS or anything else, and until they are, I really wish people would STFU and stop this pointless whining.
I really hope MS does start shipping a EU version of Windows, sans browser, and with a little note coming up to say "thank you for trying to access the internet. The EU has prohibited us from helping you with this. Please go find a CD of Firefox and then install it. Hope you don't live in a rural area!"
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
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.
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.
I don't think google makes money from searches !
Google makes money by selling advertisement space..
Now, if the EU *really* want to make this a "competitive" space, they're going to have to ask the browser providers to make the same treatment towards search engines that they do towards browsers..
Why don't we just let the people decide instead of pushing through those ridiculous laws ?
Dear EU.. Please, focus on more important matters..
What next? Force microsoft to unbundle the file explorer? Or notepad? Or the filesystem? Or the clock widget? Or the process scheduler? Or the tcp/ip stack? Or the sound driver? Or wmv player? In the evolution of "operating systems" over the past 30 years we have seen an increasing number of programs included in what can be considered to be part of the OS. Is "ls" part of the OS? What about ping, vi and ftp? ssh is more recent than sendmail, so some of you might think to draw the line there. Is lynx part of the OS? What about X11?
The graphical web browser is seen as such a contentious point now, but 10 years hence it will be considered "core" and integral, just as "ls" or "dir" or sockets or sound are today. To ignore the patterns of history is short sighted at best. Monopoly or not, I want a complete operating system, and it's unhelful to force me to choose from competing browsers, file managers, music players, editors, filesystems, clocks, sound drivers, system preference panels, or tcp/ip implementations.
I think this is a misguided and distracting effort from the EU, and the future of computing will thank thank them for butting out.
OS enthusiast, I enjoy unix vms dos scheme c assembler lynx ie vi emacs gui cli notepad wmaker kde xfce windows metal rap. Agnostic enough to see that the brouhaha over web browser choice is just muscle flexing, and truly unhelpful in the long run.
1) I'm pretty sure windows updates are downloaded automatically to my computer.
2) Anything you download off Microsoft.com can use the windows genuine tool to check if your copy of windows is genuine, there's no need for the IE only plugin.
You could argue that the automatic updates tool is somehow connected to IE however I don't think the EC would care if you left that all in and got rid of IE the program.
You think they're going to bundle Firefox or Opera?
Their lawyer will be able to keep a vendor specified judgment in court for for a very long time.
What they will probably do is get a compromise agreement to add in an un-named third party browser.
Then they'll stuff something like pre-jpeg support NCSA Mosaic, or Lynx into Windows to adhere to the letter judgment.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Who mod'ed this? This wasn't off topic.
It's the reason many country's are putting pressure on MS or pushing towards Linux.
I think it's a direct reason why they are pushing for equal time for Firefox.
Because Explorer is chock full of security holes.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
and we should care why? Monopoly schnopoly. Doesn't friggin matter.
Free market competition leads to better products. Antitrust abuse undermines free markets and leads to worse products and waste, sort of like why socialism resulted in really crappy products. If you don't lose market share or money for making crap, why make better stuff? Worse yet, MS makes money by making IE intentionally bad because it keeps the Web crippled and nonfunctional enough people can't just use the Web on some other OS.
It doesn't matter if you like using the Web that still relies upon partially implemented version of decade old technologies because one monopolist refuses to fix their browser to use any new technologies that might make the Web too useful and hurt their OS sales.
Microsoft has a market share > 90% in many areas, so it's pretty open and shut; to claim otherwise is ludicrous.
Umm, that and they've already been ruled by the EU courts to have a monopoly on desktop OS's.
You require firefox and then you'll require every other. Of course, we all know that, probably every other post states it in this thread, I'm sure.
What a joke. You don't build competition by forcing people to use another product.
The only solution is to have Microsoft remove IE from Windows completely.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
You clearly have absolutely no idea what a monopoly is. IPhones? A monopoly? Just stop posting.
While I agree with a lot of what you said... remember that not everybody gets their copy of Windows with a new computer. Some people buy a retail copy of Windows of the shelf to install it in their existing computers, while others (like I have in the past) buy OEM copies of the OS from online vendors.
In which case, you will have an OS shipping without a browser, which is pretty ridiculous.
I don't like to sit. Sitting is for people who like to sit.
Actually, in Windows Vista (at least in Home Premium) you can't use IE to do Windows Update anymore. It is now it's own application.
I don't like to sit. Sitting is for people who like to sit.
You just don't understand. It's Ok when government imposes on people, it's not when a company does it. All you have to do is ask a politician, they'll tell you, you just don't understand, leave it all to them...just write another campaign donation check and they'll take care of everything.
If nothing else, that idea would promote leaner binaries for operating systems, browsers, etc.
Then suddenly Opera could bitch about alphabetical order being unfair to them.
Quick! Trademark the _Aardvark browser!
No, the OEM picks the browser. Your PC will definitely come with a browser. It just won't be Microsoft choosing which one.
I imagine Microsoft will influence the OEMs. Subtly, in a way the courts won't be able to touch.
This subject's been done to death re the integration of browser dlls in the operating system to make Windows explorer etc work, and the IE executable being a minimal application that uses these dlls, an argument that would appeal to OEMs would be the smaller footprint the IE executable would need...
One AC calling another AC names. Yeah, I know, don't feed the trolls, but the latter one got modded insightful.
Who should decide whether a piece of code to run in Kernel mode or User mode?
Is it the Management or Programmer or User or OEM or Courts?
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
I think it almost doesn't matter now with firefox marketshare at over 25%. Any serious company has to support web standards now, and there are no longer nearly as many IE only websites as there once were.
The truth is, I'm not convinced bundling was really that important to begin with. What firefox adoption has shown, is that people *will* pick up on a better browser.
I think what killed netscape originally was that Microsoft released IE for *free*, and that netscape 4 and 6 really sucked compared to IE back in the day. A lot of people seem to have selective memory about that though...
IE is an awful browser by modern standards, but in IE 5 vs netscape 6, IE 5 won hands down.
If anything, I'm iffy about people trying to legislate firefox into the market. No matter what microsoft does, that's still a really commie move. And don't give me this "anticompetitive" crap. Microsoft has done real anticompetitive things in the past (like pressuring hardware vendors not to ship other OS's), but bundling IE was not one of themn.
I believe that we should incarcerate anyone who owns a knife. It's clear that some people have used knives to kill other people, so it's only fair that anyone who owns a knife should be sent to jail immediately!
I hope that the above sounds really fucking stupid to most people!
And yet all through this thread I see people saying "Let's punish Ubuntu because they bundle Firefox" and "Let's punish Apple because they bundle Safari." What you're all saying is "Let's punish other companies because Microsoft broke the law!"
1. Windows Update needs to be catered for, so Windows will have to ship with the bare minimum to use that (possibly including the core of IE's rendering code).
2. Many apps use IE's rendering engine - again, the core of that will probably still need to be shipped.
3. On first boot, Windows should contact a server (who runs that? The EU? MS? A consortium?) and download a list of browsers, exact download URLs (which may vary if there's localised versions) and a short description of each browser.
4. The browser list is displayed (the order of browsers is important - I'd say in most popular order, but this one is up to debate) and the user can pick *one or more* (or even none!) browsers to download and install. IE should *not* be compulsory at this point.
5. Which browsers are downloaded should be recorded centrally (i.e. from the same place the browser list was downloaded from) so that the most popular browsers can be computed for ordering in future runs.
6. The browser(s) are downloaded and installed - I think this should be from each browser vendor's site and not from a central location or from MS.
7. Updates are probably the responsibility of each browser, mainly because MS doesn't seem to allow non-MS products to be updated via Windows Update.
8. To change the set of browsers, the first-boot tool should be available from the Start menu somewhere, so that the user can re-jig the browsers as appropriate (the tool should perhaps offer to uninstall any installed browsers too if it detects any from its list are already on the system).
I don't think browser vendors should have to pay to get on the browser list - they just have to show that they release regular updates (abandoned or rarely updated browsers have no place on the list) and have a reasonable chunk of the market (e.g. 0.25% or higher). You can't present the end-user with more than about 5 or 6 browsers to install - they'll just panic otherwise.
(I am sure somewhere in the comments this is mentioned but...)
This is a BAD idea. Why stop at Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari? What about the browser I just coded? Why can't that be included? You see what I am saying? This opens up all kinds of trouble, both legal and security issues.
I'll try anything once. Twice if it tastes good
Windows Update for Vista doesn't use IE. It has its own program.
I know and the law is worthless. So much for free enterprise and Darwinism in the world of economics.
The company is forced to put a competitor's software on their OS, not because the marjority "prefers" it, but because they broke the law. If you rob someone, you will be put in prison. When you break the law, you will be punished, regardless of why you did it. But Microsoft did in fact break the law willfully and with clear intent to destroy competition.
Clever signature text goes here.
Google does make money from searches, not that it's relevant to the point I was making. No searches, no ads, remember?
Not unless a browser vendor is found guilty of breaking the law as Microsoft has been.
Because in this case, Microsoft has unlawfully prevented people from deciding by destroying competition in the market.
Antitrust cases are important to protect the market from abuse. The US has antitrust laws as well. In fact, all countries in the world have them. You only think they aren't important because you lack knowledge.
Clever signature text goes here.
Exactly! Even to this day, many sites require IE. If you want to use all those sites, you are forced to use IE. Because of Microsoft's illegal actions.
I don't give a damn if you find Opera "compelling" or not. And when you start comparing it to Firefox, when we are talking about IE here, it becomes clear that you are more concerned about throwing out red herrings than anything else. The fact is that Microsoft broke the law by undermining competition. It's that simple. In markets with actual competition, such as mobiles and devices, Opera is the dominant browser.
The user shouldn't have to be concerned about the browser. However, that shouldn't make it difficult for someone else to choose a different browser. Today, it is difficult. By your own admission, many sites still require IE.
Hopefully not. I hope the EU learned from their mistakes on that one.
Clever signature text goes here.
certainly should bundle firefox with windows. should bundle openoffice too eh?
Exactly! Even to this day, many sites require IE. If you want to use all those sites, you are forced to use IE. Because of Microsoft's illegal actions.
:)
Oh? Please do tell how MS is responsible for someone else coding their site to only work with IE.
I don't give a damn if you find Opera "compelling" or not.
Well, you should. It's 100% relevant to the conversation. If I don't like Opera, THAT is my reason for not using it, not because IE came with my OS. IE came with my OS and I choose to use neither it nor Opera. Opera started this by wanting to enable "competition". Well, you can only have competition if your product is up to the task of competing, which it isn't. That's their fault, not MS'.
And when you start comparing it to Firefox, when we are talking about IE here, it becomes clear that you are more concerned about throwing out red herrings than anything else.
Not at all, choice is absolutely relevent to the conversation. If you're not concerned with the real reasons people aren't choosing alternate browsers, everything else is just whining. And, we've always been talking about Opera. RTFA.
The fact is that Microsoft broke the law by undermining competition.
The law was broken when written.
It's that simple. In markets with actual competition, such as mobiles and devices, Opera is the dominant browser.
Your argument is illogical. Let's break the market down. For the sake of simplicity, let's say there's two types of mobile phones: those that run Windows Mobile and those that don't. Those that don't run WM don't get IE, therefore it can't be the dominant browser under any circumstance. Those that run WM come with IE, but people have other browser choices. If Opera is the dominant browser on that platform, then people have made their choice and Opera's argument doesn't apply. I have a feeling that if IE were available on other platforms, it would either be the dominant or at least a close second. I know I would prefer it if my iPhone came with IE, but Apple doesn't allow other browsers....unlike the WM phones. The only circumstance your argument holds water is WM phones and only if IE is the dominant browser, but since your argument is it's the dominant browser, you're a bit leaky.
The user shouldn't have to be concerned about the browser. However, that shouldn't make it difficult for someone else to choose a different browser.
If they're not concerned with their browser, why would they choose a different browser? And, if you don't want to make it more difficult on then, why are you forcing them to make a choice on something they're not concerned with, nor very likely understand? Your argument makes no sense at all. Beyond that, it's not difficult: go download whatever browser you want. BTW, you'll need a browser to do that. It's a good thing the maker of the OS provided you with one otherwise you couldn't get a different one.
Today, it is difficult. By your own admission, many sites still require IE.
So, the sum of your argument is that because web developers choose to code to a particular browser that it's MS fault? Also, I didn't say they REQUIRED IE, I said that FF didn't work with them. There's a huge difference between the two. Those sites might render and work perfectly in other browsers, such as Opera. The fault, then, lies with the FF team, not MS and not with the owner of the website. But, I only have two browsers installed, so I can't comment on those.
Hopefully not. I hope the EU learned from their mistakes on that one.
I would have to say they have not since they're planning on doing it again.
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
including some sort of comprehensive "browser chooser/fetcher" app (or expecting MS to do so) would be equally absurd.
Not really, stuff like this should be part of the install process or purchased separately as an internet productivity suite or something.
Twinstiq, game news
how about force bundling dragon naturally speaking with some copies of windows? since its "unfair" that newer o/s's are getting features like voice recognition built in. windows 7 will have increased backup capabilities, how about force bundling imaging software like acronis trueimage and such because its "unfair" if windows starts to have some built in imaging software. oh yea how about stripping mac osx of time machine, clearly thats depriving some third party of a product:P oh, lets get into defraggers as well, its unfair that windows has its own defragger, we should force bundle competitors defraggers as well:P these european union folk really have lost the plot. unless ms doesn't allow you to install a new browser trying to force them to strip features or bundle competitors products is simply idiotic.
If I get my government to get me what I want, I won don't I? That's what government is for, to give me what I want.
O and whats with the hate, anonymous? Maybe it's you who needs some balls.
I don't think having a browser bundled in the OS is really a problem it's actually something that should be a part of a modern OS. In the early days of the web it was not a need, but now days you might as well say that disk defragmenting, search indexing, media players, and half a dozen other utilities don't belong in the OS either.
Imagine, back in the day, if all the DOS file manager companies complained because Windows 3.1 included it's own file manager.
Opera isn't using the courts to gain market share. Opera reported a crime to the EU. Like you would report to the authorities if you witnessed a robbery. Try to pay attention.
Clever signature text goes here.
Not sure what you are saying. Bundling with other-company hardware? Microsoft doesn't make PCs.
Clever signature text goes here.
On your point that making money off OS I understand you evry well, but things arent black and white. Red Hat sells Linux, and they make money. ID sells game engines, and after 5 years releases it as OS. In other parts of society, it works like this too: hardcore science is essentially free, but if you do it right, you can still make money off of it (When Philips sells you a CD player, it sells you quantum mechanics). 'Whoring out' is just a way some people manage to make money off it. And some do it for fun. I think more and more people realize that having large basic parts OS has advantages, even if you cannot make money directly off it. Linux the kernel is a net money maker, it creates economic growth. Just like basic science, whose scientist also have to struggle for funding. And just like how I can understand physics for free, I can get Linux for free.
Now, a common way of actually obtaining science is by buying books, so I really dont see why someone couldnt sell Linux. The reason it isn't sold on the Desktop (much) is simply the reason I stated in my original post: Micrsoft has an ecosystem of 3rdparty apps that people more or less require, and which cant be easily decoupled from Windows. So actually trying to decouple these two would be a Good Thing.
Google does make money from searches, not that it's relevant to the point I was making. No searches, no ads, remember?
Not unless a browser vendor is found guilty of breaking the law as Microsoft has been.
As far as I know, IE is the only browser offering a choice as to what default search engine to use ! (not that I like being redirected to a search engine because I mistyped an URL though !
Why don't we just let the people decide instead of pushing through those ridiculous laws ?
Because in this case, Microsoft has unlawfully prevented people from deciding by destroying competition in the market.
How do you come to the conclusion that MS prevents one from choosing whichever browser he chooses ? Providing and bundling a default one can't be that bad.. Doesn't Mac OSX, KDE, AIX and whatnot do the same ?
Dear EU.. Please, focus on more important matters..
Antitrust cases are important to protect the market from abuse. The US has antitrust laws as well. In fact, all countries in the world have them. You only think they aren't important because you lack knowledge.
I am not denying antitrust laws are important.. I am disputing that THIS particular case should be considered a monopoly situation (no more than the iPhone's browser, konqueror under KDE... or shoving Posix down the neck of Un*x/Linux developers.. or .. whatnot..)
Note that I am not a stench supporter of MS.. far from it.. I disagree with most of their policies.. but the browser war is OVER! It has distracted too many of us for too long a time from the real issues that this should come to an end.. and now ! Way too much emphasis has been put on HTML UA.. There are WAY more important things than this.. more important things than deciding whether the people are intelligent enough to get another browser by themselves or whether the LAW should point them in the right direction.. yes.. more important things.. like people dying because it doesn't fit into a politician's agenda..
I'll just let go the 'lack of knowledge' part..
--Ivan
Google does make money from searches, not that it's relevant to the point I was making. No searches, no ads, remember?
Blast ! actually missed the most important point :
IE holds 80% of browser market share
Google holds 90% of search market share
IE's default search engine (unless changed) is MSN search
What did I miss ?
--Ivan
Antitrust laws do not exist in *ALL* countries.
And this is not "free" market.. That's overly regulated market. Apparently, they (EU, WTO, name it..) are regulating what doesn't need to be/shouldn't (browser monopolies, software patents, etc..) and forgetting to regulate what should (lever effect of stock options, uncontrolled credit securitization, a couple of Ponzi schemes that just fell through, etc..)
Competition comes from offering for sale what the people want at a price that's convenient to them - offering a better deal than your competitor, not what the law dictates.
Anti trust laws are here solely to prevent a single entity from being the sole provider of a commodity (and thus being able to set the price at will) - and THIS is clearly not the case (since not only are they are not the only ones, but no-one is ever pretending to make you pay for it)!
As long as 'free' (a la RMS) ACME-Browsers exists, people will *ALWAYS* have a choice.. The only thing that can prevent them from offering the alternative is *over regulation*. And *THIS* will keep the MS (commercial enterprise), FireFox (Mozilla - Commercial enterprise), Opera (Commercial enterprise) or Safari (Apple - Commercial Enterprise) from ever getting a monopoly ! Not whatever is proposed by the EU (which is obviously on an agenda).
Note that there are some countries where a monopoly is considered legal - most especially when the monopoly is state controlled.
And I don't think insulting me bore any more weight to your point - although you have a right to do so..
Because when I say 'focus on more important matters' I am talking about something that's more important than the big company's 1 in a million shareholder's fat wallets.. and that's : US - whether the tax we pay gets into the proper infrastructure we paid for, or that the 1/5th to 1/3rd of my income I give back is not given back to financial gamblers.. those sorts of things
--Ivan
Ok, maybe they don't exist in some third-world developing countries. Any examples?
The US is regulating its market too. Indeed, browser monopolies that are damaging everyone else should be regulated.
The problem is that Microsoft is not offering a better deal. They don't dominate the browser market because they offered something better than anyone else.
False. Antitrust laws are here to prevent predatory practices that undermine competition.
Not in practice, now. Even today, many sites still require IE.
Monopoly in itself isn't necessarily a problem. It becomes a problem when you abuse your dominance in one market (desktop) to prevent competition in another (browsers).
The bottom line is that Microsof broke the law, ruined the web, and they must pay the price for that.
Clever signature text goes here.
A foreword of caution : Although this might look like a hostile or contentious discussion, it's not ! we have diverging views, granted (and that's a good thing). But there is no hatred or anything negative here - just people expressing divergent views with their arguments.. so with no further ado..
About anti-trust laws & countries :
Err.. No I don't have specific examples. The fact is I was confusing anti trust laws & monopoly. Point taken.
About the U.S. anti-trust laws & damage :
I understand anti-trust laws should be enforced on negotiable goods. However, the "zero priced" scheme was set forth very early by the early browsers (remember Mosaic ?) - so from this point on - browser stopped being a negotiable good.
Now.. If you would be kind enough to describe the *ACTUAL* extent of the damage (laid forth by MS windows shipping IE for free in their OS - like Red Hat is.. like Suse is, Like IBM AIX is.. like *any* OS potentially usable on a desktop is..)
About the deal offered :
You get IE for free.. you can download & install any alternative browser of your choice.. *WHERE* is the damage ?
About Anti trust laws being there to prevent predatory practices :
Point taken. However, I still fail to see how this applies to the browser (non) market.
About Sites requiring IE :
They lost me as a patron !
About the fact the Microsoft broke the law and ruined the web :
Please indicate what law was broken and how the actually did ruin the web ? (Oh my... The web is ruined ! the Internetz is crashing ! we're doomed !)
About having to pay the price :
So should Red Hat, Suse, Apple... (who are all offering pre-installed browsers.. and Some of them do not even allow you to get an alternate one).
--Ivan