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)
I found a much better informative article. Even though the damn site won't let you see the printable version first since web browsers tell the NYT server you came from slashdot. ;)
This space is not for rent.
offer an installation screen that gives consumers a choice of which browser to install.
Will the masses still opt for IE?
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"
Bets please.
Could be. I tend to think that Google would rather compete on the merits of their products than the lockin of the browser. If IE retained the market share it had just a few years ago, do you not think that MS would have leveraged that market against Google? MS is known for ruthless business practices, not Google.
2. If the war is over and firefox has allegedly won, why does the large majority of internet users still use IE?
Because it comes with the OS that's on that 'puter they bought a Wal-Mart.
Doesn't MS have, like, a 90% penetration in the market?
>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.
1. What does Google have to do with it?
They market their own browser?
2. The browser wars are basically over (the monopoly stage, that is). Everyone and their dog has heard about firefox by now, and how good it is.
Then why is IE still by far the most used browser?
Exactly, because it's bundled and because a lot of people wouldn't know how to get on the net without it unless they're offered a 1-click option.
If it was up to me I'd still insist on unbundling of IE.
It is sufficiently documented when IE suddenly, and for MS conveniently, became 'part of the OS', no doubt to take away traction from the then running court case.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
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.
Google must be losing confidence in their ability to compete on leveraged monopoly market positions alone.
Fixed.
(As I've noted elsewhere, I disagree with some of the finding-of-fact material used to claim MS has a monopoly. But, the courts disagree with me, both here and in the EU. That being the case, competitors in those markets have every right to expect enforcement of the law consistent with those findings.)
And it is not as if MS didn't interfere in hearings about the Google/Yahoo deal either.
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.
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.
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.
They don't break
They do do this sort of thing with IE.
I agree the solution of bundling different browsers doesn't make much sense. I think that a much better approach would be promoting standards compliant web pages and browsers.
I'd like to see the EU and the US Feds requiring it for anything that gets any government funding.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
'Google, Yahoo, IAC, AOL, and Lycos -- the major Internet search companies other than Microsoft -- on Wednesday filed a motion to compel the Software Rights Archive (SRA) to reveal who is behind its 2-year-old patent lawsuit against them'
'Microsoft today argued that US House and Senate Judiciary Committees that the proposed Google/Yahoo deal, claiming that Yahoo's agreement to support ads through a non-exclusive deal is anti-competitive and would allegedly hurt innovation'
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"
I guess you're trying to bait people, but I think you're right on both counts. Google has a number of projects that they've been working on that depend on moving web standards forward. Microsoft's inclusion of IE as the default browser in the most dominant desktop OS, paired with Microsoft's refusal to implement web standards, have clearly made it difficult for Google to build the sort of business they'd like to build.
It seems to me that Google has valid grounds for complaint that they can't increase the merits of their own products, due largely to IE's weakness, so I can't imagine how they could have the confidence to compete "on merits alone"? That's why they need to push anything that might encourage people to use a real web browser that works properly.
I would put forth, that putting "faith" in any company, is faith misplaced.
A company isn't a benevolent entity that cares about people and the general 'good'....not if they are for profit.
A company's ONLY allegiance is to the stockholders and the almighty dollar (substitute your country's currency here). Does it have to act in a negative way? No. But, having and losing faith in a faceless, non-human entity is just not something to do. I'd say that you should, in general not put faith into anyone or anything that is beholden to someone else for their current position....politicians included. They are out to get re-elected and unless you really matter in that equation...well, I think you see where I'm going.
Unless someone is in a somehow powerful position, but, altruistic and not for profit, and independent...I'd not be putting my faith in anyone.
The only person looking out for YOUR best interests....is YOU.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
>>>Google would rather compete on the merits of their products than the lockin of the browser.
I agree. Google's browser has little chance of success when it is more difficult to obtain (download/install) than Microsoft's browser (already there and operational). Google simply wants to support the EU's attempt to bring an even playing field to the market.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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
Yeah, and they were gonna cooperate and do what?
It was a detente to try and bleed MS of some extra cash while saddling them with Yahoo. Ballmer, not being retarded, didn't take the bait, and stuck to his guns. Yahoo had it's chance, and the shareholders have only one person to blame for blocking the deal.
Yahoo is floundering and NO ONE will come to its aid. When it's over, companies will pick at the corpse and take whatever chunks they deem worthwhile.
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.
You can either force a choice or make a choice. If you force a choice, you're expecting the user is competent to make that choice.
"Why cant you just choose it for me?! I don't understand computers. I don't care whether my RAM is samsung or hynix. I don't understand RAM timings. DDR2.. DDR3, whats all that? I don't understand Firefox ,Opera, Safari, IE. Just make it work !"
Forcing a user to choose just confuses them.
Ah.. wait there is a simple reason everyone is against microsoft:
Monopoly, MS is Evil... "blah blah I don't understand a word of antitrust law or the antitrust ruling but I'll just slip in random words to make my argument"
Yup that's it. MS is wrong just because its MS. Siding with MS is stupid because I loose my geek cred...
"MS is not a monopoly. Just because the linux nerds like to troll out this piece of FUD doesn't make it true"
It has been found by both American and EU authorities that MS holds a monopoly in the OS market and leverages that monopoly in other markets, which in both places is illegal. As far as the law is concerned, the court findings make it true, any debate between you and the "linux nerds" aside.
"Operating Systems that run on x86 processors"
In evaluating competition in the market, the US court did consider MacOS (which at the time did not run on x86, though it does today); so at best your claim is misleading.
"So if we take operating systems that run on Power PC processors, [...]"
Let's assume, for a moment, that the court would identify that as a distinct market. Let's further assume that they would agree that Apple has an effective monopoly in that market. Neither of those is a slam dunk, but suppose they're both found true.
Now as soon as Apple leverages that monopoly to competitive advantage in another market, you'll have a useful parallel.
"NO JUDGE EVER has deemed Microsoft as a monopoly on office software, developer tools, windows mobile, game consoles, etc etc."
That they compete in markets where they aren't a monopoly doesn't immunize them against (or have anything to do with) charges that they abused the monopoly position they are found to hold in the OS market.
"Office, Visual Studio, etc etc have very limited advantage from running on Windows. They could run on whichever OS was the most popular. AFAIK they don't get any special favors from the OS team. Nobody outside of the windows team even has access to the OS source code"
The court is concerning itself with marketing advantage, not technical advantage. So this is really a moot point, but:
MS does more to separate its OS team from its other operations than it used to, as a result of antitrust rulings. However, to say that other teams don't have access to the source code is incorrect; and any suggestion that the OS and app teams wouldn't be "doing special favors" for each other absent anti-trust regulation is contradicted by history.
"If any of them use undocumented APIs then they don't ship"
I'm skeptical of that claim, but I don't know. What I do know for a fact is, they do ship products that use undocumented features of "documented" API's. (i.e. they pass in undocumented values for control parameters that completely change what the function does.) I've seen it first hand.
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?
The same laws enforced on everyone else? Hmmmmm. Name one? Preferably a software company, please.
Here's a lisiting of hundreds of them. If you want a software case, look at Telfonica last year. It was a major one tying software and services.
I like the free market. Which implies the EU not getting involved in it... or the US, or whoever else.
Monopolies make it possible to easily undermine the free market. That's why it is illegal for trusts to take actions that will undermine the operation of the free market. Anarchy is not a free market as simpletons who have never picked up an economics text would assert.
Hehe, fixing notepad would be good... wait, no it wouldn't, because then there'd be another monopoly there. As it is, I'm forced to download a competitor. Bad notepad == good for competitor business. Why do you want them to fix it? :)
How is OEMs installing a variety of text editors and users realizing they have choices worse for competition than everyone being given one inferior one and people who can't stand it looking for more options? If you made a text editor would you seriously like to have no chance of licensing it to OEMs because MS already includes one and forces OEMs to pay their dev fees?
OEM installs other browsers... well, they can do that now, if they want to, can't they?
Sure, but MS has undermined the market in such a way that it is no longer in their best financial interest to include the best browser because all browsers other than IE are artificially broken. Antitrust abuse isn't about holding a gun to people's heads and forcing them to take an action. We already have other laws against that. It is about abusing a monopoly to make the best choice one that is detrimental to society and end users and no longer fosters innovation and efficiency.
"No, because then Microsoft won't let them use Windows."
Nice strawman,
Great, then maybe they'll start using Linux.
Maybe you're not understanding monopoly influence.
Unless Linux isn't as good as we like to think it is, and people actually can't use it as well?
Linux is not usable by the average person partly because companies are not motivated to make it so because the market is undermined and innovation is slowed and partly because it is artificially broken by MS's dominance and illegal actions... but all that is beside the point. This is about the browser market being broken by an illegal action, not the OS market.
. Regardless, if THAT was the lawsuit
Please educate yourself or RTFA. There is no lawsuit here. This is a criminal court case, not a civil suit.
All of them that want to be included? Great, my computer will now ship with 50 browsers. :)
Could be, but maybe you might want to wait until a remedy is actually proposed before critiquing it. What's the point in your complaining about guesses as to what you think the EU might propose?
End users deserve better and can have better if we restore the free market ... by what?
Enforcing the law we've been enforcing for a hundred years.
By telling Microsoft, by court-ordering/government-mandating them to shape up and produce better products or leave?
Please give up the strawman arguments already.
By forcing Microsoft to compete on even ground with every other browser developer so the best product can gain share in a free market. I really don't see why you are so opposed to MS having to compete with others fairly. If their browser is the best it will win. If it isn't it will lose. How can you object to that?
Maybe bad MS products