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.
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.
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.
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
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.
'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.........
>>>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.
"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.