Slashdot Mirror
Google Joins EU Antitrust Case Against Microsoft
gubm writes "Google said it wants to help the European Commission prove its antitrust charges against Microsoft regarding the bundling of the Internet Explorer browser with Windows."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Companies typically interest themselves with anything that weakens their competitors. Google must be losing confidence in their ability to compete on merits alone.
is fair play in the corporate world. Be wise, Google.
You've answered the wrong question. That would fit the question "If Firefox is superior, why hasn't Firefox won the browser war?"
And that is exactly why this is still an issue, GGP's assertion that the browser war is over notwithstanding.
And now we will have a ton of posts that either bash or IE or stick up for IE. This isn't about IE and its merits. It wouldn't matter if Microsoft had THE best browser in the world. The EU doesn't care about that, do they? This isn't even about the consumer. This is just a political/corporate game.
And frankly, letting the EU play it (and Google, now) simply because *we* don't like IE is ridiculous. Next thing we know, they'll have to start bundling Notepad++, too, because Notepad has the market cornered ;)
Besides, so let's say they don't bundle IE... or say they have to bundle a competitor. Which competitor? Firefox? Why not K-Meleon? Safari? Opera? Seamonkey? And hey, what about all those other calculators out there? And what about bundling openoffice.org instead of an Office trial version? And what about ...
It's stupid. I use Firefox and really don't like IE at all, and I still think its stupid...
Well, there are a lot of ways to do that:
1.You can use FTP.
2.You can download Firefox installer on another PC and then transfer it using floppies, USB flash memory or some other sneakernet technology.
3.You can include the Firefox installer to your Windows install CD.
4.Microsoft may make a program that lets you choose between IE, Firefox, Opera and Chrome.
Anyway, how do you install network card drivers after installing Windows if your network card is not supported by the default Windows install?
"But Joe Sixpack will not know how to accomplish options #1-#3 and MS may not make option #4 available to him"
Well, there is a high probability that Joe also does not know how to install Windows. So he has two options:
1. Ask a friend to install Windows for him
2. Buy a PC with Windows already installed by an OEM.
In case of #1, the friend will also be able to install Firefox, in case of #2. the OEM will have installed a browser for him.
Is the iPhone or Android market dominant? Are Apple or Google able to impose their de-facto standards on anyone else?
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
I agree. But then again a version of Windows that will only run MS software is also fine in my eyes. It's their product, and if people aren't happy then they shouldn't buy it. Does the EU force Apple to unbundle QT and Safari, or what about iTunes? Are BMW forced to fit a third-party stereo?
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
And many linux desktops only come with Firefox or Konqueror, and many mobile platforms only come with Opera, and many consoles only come with their own half-baked browsers, unless you go out of your way to find an alternative. That's not the issue. The issue is that IE is bundled with a monopoly product, non-standard, has related development tools that encourage writing for just it, and the end result is that a monopoly is, by default, becoming more of a monopoly, when the intent is that, instead, competition and progress should be encouraged.
What if the IE choice says "Choosing IE will give you a substandard browsing experience, plus your computer will be pwned by malware. Oh and also you are holding back the progress of all mankind you douche"
You mean: "Choosing IE will let you view almost any website with little or no problems, plus your computer will be pwned if you have Flash or Reader installed by malware. Oh and you are one of the only non-zealot fanbois who think Microsoft must die"
And if you picked Firefox: "Choosing Firefox will turn you into a Firefox fanboi, giving you a clunky browsing experience, prompting you to update constantly, and still get pwned as more people use it."
Can't forget about Opera: "Choosing Opera will not make you cool for being the only person you know who uses it (See random distros of Linux)."
What about Safari?: "Choosing Safari will allow Apple to recommend installing other Apple services, still let you get pwned by malware and make you an Apple fanboi."
90% of people use IE because 90% of people just want a basic browser, and don't really care about things like extensions, better security, better features, etc. that browsers like Firefox provide. IE is installed by default so they just use that. It's the same reason 90% of PC users use Windows Media Player to play their audio and video files rather than one of the numerous other superior media players out there.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
1. Ask a friend to install Windows for him
2. Buy a PC with Windows already installed by an OEM.
In case of #1, the friend will also be able to install Firefox, in case of #2. the OEM will have installed a browser for him.
And, the OEM will likely install IE. Joe Sixpack will have no idea that there are other options out there, and continue to use what he's given.
I have tried to get my wife to use something (anything) other than IE, but she won't. She knows how to use Windows (in a limited way) can get her email and the few websites she is interested in. She also uses Word to do her report cards 3 times a year - and she happy with that. I think she represents the vast majority of computer users out there who aren't interested in the latest and greatest.
The average /.er on the other hand.........
>B2 Spirit, radar contact......
If the EU does this, then will they also force Apple to open the iPhone to other browsers? Will they force Google to allow other browsers to be shipped with android? Ok, these are not desktop platforms, but the same should apply.
The same laws do apply, you just don't seem to have a clue what they are. You first clue should be the word "antitrust". Find out what a "trust" is and you'll be most of the way to understanding why MS's action violates an antitrust law while Neither Apple nor Google's bundling of a browser does.
And now we will have a ton of posts that either bash or IE or stick up for IE. This isn't about IE and its merits
That my friend, is correct.
The EU doesn't care about that, do they? This isn't even about the consumer.
This, my friend, is 10000% incorrect. Anti-trust is exactly about the consumer. For capitalism to work, competition must be preserved and consumers must have choice. MS is a convicted monopolist, and MS has been proven that it exercises it's OS market share to intimidate PC makers to only bundle IE, and because it gives away IE for free, it under cut Netscape who, at the time was switching to a pay model for it's web browser.
This is just a political/corporate game.
That's true, at least for Google and Microsoft, but don't try to lump the EU into that same category. I'm not saying any government, even the EU, is perfect, but I'm sick and tired of people who don't understand trust law not realizing that prosecuting a monopoly is a Good Thing.
And frankly, letting the EU play it (and Google, now) simply because *we* don't like IE is ridiculous. Next thing we know, they'll have to start bundling Notepad++, too, because Notepad has the market cornered ;)
Obviously a troll, but I'll bite. First, you say this has nothing to do with the quality of IE, which is absolutely true, so the first part of this sentence is invalidated by that. It's not about if we don't like it, it's about if Microsoft is abusing it's monopoly power. Remember, although the penalty phase was messed up, in the US, Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Second, your comment about notepad shows again you don't understand monopolies. The monopoly here is in the OS market with windows, and the abuses are using their OS dominance to gain dominance in another market, the web browsing market, which, despite Firefox, they still have a dominant share in. Besides... who's to say microsoft's licensing language doesn't prevent OEMs from installing notepad++? Notepad isn't a powerplayer here, but if the maker of notepad++ and dell wanted to enter into an agreement, and Microsoft said "if you do that I will jack up your licensing fees" then that's abuse of monopoly power. Dell has no choice, and that's a bad thing. That translates into no choice for the consumer.
Besides, so let's say they don't bundle IE... or say they have to bundle a competitor. Which competitor? Firefox? Why not K-Meleon? Safari? Opera? Seamonkey? And hey, what about all those other calculators out there? And what about bundling openoffice.org instead of an Office trial version? And what about ...
All very valid points, and I simply reply by saying "yeah that's a good idea, why not?" For the browser at least, since it's essentially required software, install a bunch of different ones, and allow OEMs to create a program which says "hey, which browser do you want to try?" Or, allow OEMs to chose a browser other than IE. But there are other solutions as well. We don't have to worry about the specific solution here because the article makes no mention of a solution, so you just pulled that out of your ass. They haven't gotten to that stage yet.
See, in the old days, MS said to OEMs "You will bundle ONLY IE with windows or we will charge you outrageous licensing fees!" And it worked. IBM said no, and they found out they weren't the 800 lb gorilla any more and had to pay through the nose. Dell complied and they got some of the best prices. However, consumers complain to Dell, and want choice from Dell. Dell's hands are tied, and consumers suffer. Dell has no way to improve the experience for customers and evolve because Dell is bound by Microsoft who demands this. Dell I'm sure would like to offer another browser. Let Dell chose, and thus the consumer judge Dell it on it's own merits. Choice is stifled here, therefore the consumer loses. Microsoft may still be doing this to a degree, despite being a convicted monopolist, and the EU
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
So people should have a choice, but IE should go and die? Doesn't sound like a choice to me.
.... Slashdot.
I don't know about you, but the only website I've ever had problems with in IE was
FYI - People can use any browser they want right now - All possible because there is at least one browser already installed on Windows.
Microsoft and its monopoly has materially harmed the industry and consumers for so long, it has to stop.
For everyone that argues that Microsoft innovates or has created the computer market in the first place, I submit that you either don't know the history of the personal computer or choose to ignore it.
Thin client computers were killed by Microsoft. The "Are you my friend or are you Larry's" asked Bill Gates, and poof the DEC Shark was dead and so, eventually was DEC.
"Go" computers got killed when Toshiba pulled out of an agreement. The "rumor" was that Microsoft threatened them.
DRI's DRDOS, ConcurrentDOS, Gem Desktop, and the list can go on and on.
Many of these technologies were better than what Microsoft was offering and had a chance until Microsoft used its monopoly position to threaten suppliers and pay off retail outlets.
So, because of Microsoft's actions, we are STUCK with computers that come with Windows pre-installed. No one gets to choose. Its like a DVD player that only plays movies from Sony. That in itself isn't bad, but when that is the only practical DVD player choice, it kills everything else.
You can replace IE with browser X. People would still use it because its bundled. What people don't understand is choice in browsers for most people is meaningless.
If you went to buy a stereo and they gave you a choice for the DAC/ADC between chip X and chip Y, you would look at them like they're crazy. Whats analogous with the computer here is that few people want to break down the machine into software and hardware and choose everything individually, and fewer people want to break down the operating system and choose individual OS components.
Similarly whenever a consumer makes _ANY_ purchase there could be thousands of brands that they are not aware of, many of them better. If you have a bigger marketing budget and a decent product - you win. (Yes, other things matter too, but I'm trying to keep it simple)
Should we now force retailers to carry many products based on some consumer rights activists notion of "fairness"?
Should we FORCE OEMs to give a choice (i.e. confuse non technical people) to the consumers on individual components of operating systems? Whats next ? Force choice of different kernels to choose?
Lots of your responses to your first question are focused on the fact that Google is marketing their own browser. While that's true, I would go farther than that: Google's entire business relies on web browsers. If lots of people are using a web browser that doesn't function properly, then it's a big headache for Google. If one of the most powerful companies in tech is pushing people to use a browser that doesn't work properly, then I'm sure Google will take an interest.
And beyond that, Google has been very interested in pushing web standards forward so that they can improve their products. There are things like improved javascript support, client-side caching of web applications, and improved CSS+HTML support that would allow them to build more advanced web applications. That's why they've invested money in both Firefox and Chrome. They can't continue to build their business if Microsoft is going to stonewall browser improvements.
IE is the default browser, so MSN is the default search engine. Even though people go to Google automatically these days, I wouldn't be surprised if their new browser is just a cover story. If they work a deal with OEMs, they could have the default browser be Chrome, with the default search engine being Google. Or even if the OEM wants Firefox, Google could still be the default search engine via their past investments and agreements with Mozilla.
Getting IE off windows, or at least not as prominently featured, is probably seen as a key strategy in the fight for search/ad market.
But you can't UNINSTALL the browser! Microsoft entwines it so much with the OS that it's ALWAYS THERE. It removes your choice and unfairly stifles competition!
Bullshit! People have to be getting this from somewhere if I just scrolled through pages of the same comment, but it's not true.
Because IE is included with the operating system, lots of first- and third-party programs use it for rendering web pages. It exports a nice COM interface and has .NET components. (In fact, you can make a "tabbed browser" in 3 clicks in C#.)
Removing IE doesn't break Windows - it breaks other programs. Any kind of F1 compiled help will die. Steam would die. Creative's "Update" application would die. So on and so forth.
So, the uninstaller just removes the icon. But, there's nothing stopping you from deleting c:\program files\Internet Explorer. For those of you following along on Vista, also try c:\program files (x86)\Internet Explorer.
Now, if the Mozilla devs would also export a nice, shiny COM interface or a .NET assembly, all of this would be moot. They could even make a redistributable version of Firefox so interested parties could include it with their installer.
Until that day, the alternative to assuming IE exists on every machine is every program even remotely related to the internets writing their own browser.
DATABASE WOW WOW
More important than Google's browser is their web services. Google wants to use new web technologies and wants faster javascript, IE has neither.
For example, "In order to make Google Maps work in IE, Google had to develop ExCanvasâ"a complex library that implements many of the Canvas element's features with VML, Microsoft's proprietary alternative to SVG."(Article)
In fact, most people seem to agree that Chrome is more intended to push adoption of newer technologies than as an actual end product.
There is zero reason to prevent Microsoft from including a browser with their operating system. A survey of any number of other operating systems will show they all include browsers, some of them even developed in-house. Nor is there sufficient cause to force Microsoft to include other browsers, as that wouldn't really prevent any problems, and would really cause more than it's worth. How do you select the other browsers? What about security exploits? No thanks. That doesn't help me the user.
As long as there's nothing stopping OEMs from adding a browser to their systems, and nothing stopping individuals from using a browser of their choice, I really don't see a problem. You want to install Chrome or Opera? Go right ahead.
I have seen a few complaints that certain programs continue to use IE. There's a reason for this, because they have some need to display text, and the IE engine provides that feature to them. It's really no different than DirectX when you think about it. It provides a standard interface, and apparently that's something desirable.
Who knew?
Are you going to force other software developers to not use IE? Seems unfair to me.
The government has explicitely put itself in the business of leveling competitive playing fields if said fields are found to be tilted by the use of a monopoly position that one player holds. If you don't like the law, lobby to change it; but don't expect a business (which exists for the express purpose of making money and could be sued by shareholders if it doesn't try to do so) not to pursue the legal remedies to which the government says they are entitled.
Why does it have to be a forced choice? and what's wrong with a forced choice?
When you buy a new car, you have all sorts of "forced choices" you can make, 2 door, 4 door, I4, V6, V8, Petrol, Diesel, manual/automatic transmission, heated seats, 16, 17, 18, 19 inch rims, undercoating, paint color, warranty based on miles, warranty based on years, etc... even after you buy the car you have choices to make, insurance, premium/supreme/various octanes gases, what tires to buy when the stock ones wear out...
Or, you don't, you can by a preset configuration, use whatever gas you happen to stop next to, leave it up to the "default" or mechanics decision on new tires, and what anti-freeze to use...
If you buy a new PC, you have similar choices, processor (engine), HD space (seats), videocards (headlights), color, normal/slim form factor, etc, and most online purchases have a plethora of other options, like 4 different printers, 3 mice, external HD/mem sticks, etc...
I hear more people complain about a lack of options when buying a car then too many options, as far as "confuse non-technical people" goes, that's up to the dealer/website descriptions of benifits/drawbacks...
Should OEMs be forced to provide choices? No, but it will usually if not always help their business, just like a Porsche (only) dealer, probably makes less money than than a Dodge + Jeep + Chrysler dealer will... just like AlienWare Vs Dell, or HP, etc...
As for DAC/ADC most people would only look at them like they are crazy if the retailer just said "so, do you want DAC, or ADC?" and when the customer asks "whats the benefits?" their only response is "DAC or ADC???"... if the retailer explains the advantages/disadvantages, almost anyone would be able to pick, those who don't care, will just ask "well what do you think?" retailer (usually) sells them the most expensive one...done...
The customer should have choices, it benefits both the customer (oooh specialized) and the retailer (more units sold), but those choices don't have to be every option every known to the product, usually just the "expected" options, and right now, people don't expect a Web Browser option, and that's what needs to change.
As far as the retailer is concerned, I don't think they really care about browsers, it wont change their per-unit costs, but it will (most likely) attract more customers, and as a psychological effect, once you provided choices, people tend to want to make more choices.
But i'm just babbling now...
it is losing market share month by month. And browsers which didn't exist 2 years ago are gaining.
So the barrier to entry in the browser market must not be so compelling as to prevent another entrant. Nor is the barrier to success.
And customers/consumers have (and had) multiple choices and are taking advantage of them.
So why the case?
I don't know about you, but the only website I've ever had problems with in IE was .... Slashdot.
This? Now try it with ~any browser other than IE.
For the lazy (source):
~Any up-to-date-but-still-stable browser renders it correctly (read: the page doesn't look munged), except for IE, chrome, safari, and other webkit-based browsers. ~Any RC/alpha/etc gets a score upwards of 80, except for IE.
$ make available
1.You can use FTP.
2.You can download Firefox installer on another PC and then transfer it using floppies, USB flash memory or some other sneakernet technology.
For vast majority of users today, this is an unacceptable inconvenience.
3.You can include the Firefox installer to your Windows install CD.
4.Microsoft may make a program that lets you choose between IE, Firefox, Opera and Chrome.
These two are even worse. Who decides which browsers get to be bundled on Windows install CD and which aren't? Who decides which browsers go on the list of browsers available to install?
90% of people use IE because 90% of people just want a basic browser and don't really care about things like [...]
Right and wrong. They use IE because that's what the computer ships with their computer, not because they want a basic browser. All the people I've helped set up a computer use Firefox or Opera because that's what I set up for them.
People don't care about extensions and security (until they need to wipe their system because of infections), but they don't actually care about their browser being basic or not. The important part is that since they don't care they use whatever ships with their system, mostly regardless of the feature set.
"I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)