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.
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
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.
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.
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?
First, the EU already convicted them for the bundling of their media player. Second, the media player market is horribly broken anyway because of certain cartels and forcing MS to change will make less of a difference especially with Apple leveraging their near monopoly to promote a different player.
With the Web however you have just Microsoft as the stumbling block preventing fair competition. You have an open and shut case with fairly straightforward remedies available. You have a complaint from effected competitors. You have already discovered evidence of MS's intent to maliciously break the market. It is an ideal market to fix and actually help both other companies and the people in general.
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?
*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...)
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.