Hey, there is nothing stopping Firefox from making it's own OS and having Firefox installed by default on it.
That's not the point. Microsoft didn't create its own browser and let it "win" on its own merit. It bundled it and abused its monopoly power, thereby breaking the law.
As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft has every right to include their own browser in their OS... it IS their OS.
But they broke the law, which means that rights will be taken away. 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.
Really, as a user I wouldn't want this. All this does is install more software by default that I have to go and uninstall.
No, not if OEMs preinstall a browser.
it's about every browser company saying "I want equal treatment as your browser on your OS, even though I didn't contribute to making it at all, so that I can get a slice of that nice big user-base that is just fine with using the default browser."
False. It's about the fact that MS broke the law. Please pay attention.
The major reason they are doing this on behalf of Opera (as opposed to Firefox or Chrome) is that Opera is an EU corporation.
Opera is not an EU corporation. Norway is not a member of the EU. But even if it were, you are doing nothing but exposing your ignorance. The US went after Microsoft too. Is the US an EU corporation? Your conspiracy theories are just silly. Microsoft broke EU law. Now they suffer the consequences. That simple.
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?
Plus concentrating on browsers is something that some people can understand which covers the real issue of, how do we extract more tax dollars from this money machine called Windows?
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.
Oh, that's right, portray our solution good for THE CHILDREN! Crap, its a computer program... uh, its good for European companies which in turn is good for THE CHILDREN.
Who mentioned children? The fact is that Microsoft broke the law. End of story.
Remind me how Microsoft has EVER stopped me from downloading and installing whatever browser I damn well choose?
By locking the web to IE. To this day, many sites still require IE.
Just because you can download a browser doesn't mean that Microsoft didn't break the law. 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.
The law, since Microsoft broke the law with the way they pushed IE.
They should be able to do what they want.
Not as a monopoly (as they are in legal terms), and certainly not after breaking the law. 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 Coke have to put a Pepsi can in the box as well.
They shouldn't. Because they didn't break the law. Microsoft broke the law.
how Internet Explorer is such a big deal for the EU
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.
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?
Microsoft broke the law. Is breaking the law bad?
If you want to go after Microsoft, then go after them for the things that are truly evil. The monopolization.
Which is what is happening.
The embrace, extend and extinguish.
Yep, that's part of their violation of the law.
Forcing vendors to bundle other browsers won't do anything. Do you really think Microsoft fears this?
Yes. Otherwise they wouldn't have threatened OEMs to only bundle IE in the past.
If the bundling of IE is such a problem then why is Firefox so popular when compared to Opera? It couldn't be anything to do with Opera's business model or lack of advertising or it being closed source or they insisted on payment when there were 3 other free broswers or any of those other drawbacks?
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?
"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."
The one problem that strikes me with including other software is responsibility, both for support and for updates.
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.
Where will updates come from? Windows Update or an manufacturer? Who supports the browsers?
Minor detail. OEMs will support they browser they choose. Updates can happen in many ways. Most browsers these days update themselves automatically anyway.
And then there's updates for manufacturers. How often does Firefox update? Rather a lot. So do manufacturers absorb the cost to redo their disk images?
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?
Or do we have a downloader that starts the first time an internet connection is there; in which case you're shipping an OS without a browser at all, which, in this day and age is ridiculous.
No, the OEM picks the browser. Your PC will definitely come with a browser. It just won't be Microsoft choosing which one.
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?
Because Microsoft broke the law with the browser. And besides, the browser is becoming the most important application platform.
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.
It is. Part of the initial complaint is IE's poor standards compliance, and it was suggested that the authorities force IE to become more standards compliant.
They are thinking let's bash the top dog. It's not uncommon for the number 1 guy to get all the flak - even if its unwarranted. Now MS is guilty of doing some shady stuff, but really - to force them to install multiple browsers on their product?
MS is guilty of breaking the law. 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.
So it's not about "bashing the top dog", it's about enforcing the law.
Installing multiple browsers is a bad idea, though. Instead, IE should be removed from Windows, and OEMs should take care of the bundling.
So the next time I buy a car, say a Toyota, should the US gov't force that Toyota to come with the same features/products that a Lamborghini has? I mean the Lamborghini is a better product - so maybe Toyota should be forced to bundle in a v12 engine in there for me.
Your comment stems from your extremely poor understanding of the issue. It is not that Microsoft actually offers a superior product (IE is in fact inferior). It is that Microsoft broke the law. Did Toyota break the law? Does Toyota even have a monopoly like MS does?
IE will be used for MS Exchange and other similar restrictive sites that I utilize.
Thanks for proving the EU's point. To this day, many sites and services still require IE!
Do they sufficiently have control of the market to demand terms to Apple, for example?
I don't understand what that has to do with anyting. Apple has, what, maybe 5% desktop market share?
Is Firefox beholden to MS? Again, another thriving market with no ties to MS.
The browser market is not "thriving", thanks to Microsoft's illegal actions.
It's just interesting to me that whenever there has been a superior competitor (Apple computers -- although I think the OS is actually somewhat subpar, but the hardware is great -- or Firefox's browser) they've made great strides against the "monopoly". These are things that shouldn't happen in a world with a real monopoly flexing its muscle.
Apple has not made great strides. Windows still has 90% market share. As for Firefox, you are not quitegetting it:
"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."
So what you are saying is that Microsoft's willfull violation of antitrust law by tying iexplorer.exe even closer to Windows is paying off? That because they continued to willfully violate the law, they shouldn't have to be punished for breaking the law?
As for the argument that most people will only use what came with the machine, well, you can't legislate against stupidity.
This is not about whether people are stupid or not. Although looking at the many silly comments here, including yours, completely missing the point and ignoring the actual facts, one can wonder... Anyway, the point is that Microsoft broke the law. 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.
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.
So what you are saying is that Microsoft should not be punished for breaking the law?
It's not like the Firefox people (or the Opera people, or Google...) are losing money because users can get IE for free, because those browsers are free as well.
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.
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?
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.
IE is not losing market share at a high rate at all. On the contrary, the massive resources spent to get Firefox to 15-20% are incredible. Enormous amounts of resources compared to that tiny market share. If there was actual competition, Firefox would have been dominant a long time ago.
I share your frustrations. It is amazing how all these people people are spewing out uneducated nonsense. And to think that some of these people can vote...:)
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not the point. Microsoft didn't create its own browser and let it "win" on its own merit. It bundled it and abused its monopoly power, thereby breaking the law.
But they broke the law, which means that rights will be taken away. 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.
No, not if OEMs preinstall a browser.
False. It's about the fact that MS broke the law. Please pay attention.
Opera is not an EU corporation. Norway is not a member of the EU. But even if it were, you are doing nothing but exposing your ignorance. The US went after Microsoft too. Is the US an EU corporation? Your conspiracy theories are just silly. Microsoft broke EU law. Now they suffer the consequences. That simple.
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.
By locking the web to IE. To this day, many sites still require IE.
Just because you can download a browser doesn't mean that Microsoft didn't break the law. 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.
WebKit isn't exactly KHTML. Just based on KHTML.
The law, since Microsoft broke the law with the way they pushed IE.
Not as a monopoly (as they are in legal terms), and certainly not after breaking the law. 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.
They shouldn't. Because they didn't break the law. Microsoft broke the law.
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.
Microsoft broke the law. Is breaking the law bad?
Which is what is happening.
Yep, that's part of their violation of the law.
Yes. Otherwise they wouldn't have threatened OEMs to only bundle IE in the past.
It does.
How?
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.
Because Microsoft broke the law with the browser. And besides, the browser is becoming the most important application platform.
It is. Part of the initial complaint is IE's poor standards compliance, and it was suggested that the authorities force IE to become more standards compliant.
MS is guilty of breaking the law. 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.
So it's not about "bashing the top dog", it's about enforcing the law.
Installing multiple browsers is a bad idea, though. Instead, IE should be removed from Windows, and OEMs should take care of the bundling.
Your comment stems from your extremely poor understanding of the issue. It is not that Microsoft actually offers a superior product (IE is in fact inferior). It is that Microsoft broke the law. Did Toyota break the law? Does Toyota even have a monopoly like MS does?
Thanks for proving the EU's point. To this day, many sites and services still require IE!
No browser should be bundled with Windows. OEMs should take care of the bundling. Keep Microsoft away from having anything to do with it.
It is not a lawsuit.
Yes.
I don't understand what that has to do with anyting. Apple has, what, maybe 5% desktop market share?
The browser market is not "thriving", thanks to Microsoft's illegal actions.
Apple has not made great strides. Windows still has 90% market share. As for Firefox, you are not quite getting it:
"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."
So what you are saying is that Microsoft's willfull violation of antitrust law by tying iexplorer.exe even closer to Windows is paying off? That because they continued to willfully violate the law, they shouldn't have to be punished for breaking the law?
Has it been demonstrated that Microsoft broke the law with IM, Solitaire and Pain like they did with WMP and IE?
This is not about whether people are stupid or not. Although looking at the many silly comments here, including yours, completely missing the point and ignoring the actual facts, one can wonder... Anyway, the point is that Microsoft broke the law. 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.
So what you are saying is that Microsoft should not be punished for breaking the law?
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.
Exactly. Leave the bundling to OEMs (not Microsoft).
Which is why the bundling should be left to OEMs. MS should stay well clear of it.
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?
IE is not losing market share at a high rate at all. On the contrary, the massive resources spent to get Firefox to 15-20% are incredible. Enormous amounts of resources compared to that tiny market share. If there was actual competition, Firefox would have been dominant a long time ago.
I share your frustrations. It is amazing how all these people people are spewing out uneducated nonsense. And to think that some of these people can vote... :)
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.