Slashdot Log In
EU Could Force Bundling Firefox With Windows
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:57 AM
from the could-they-force-me-a-sandwich dept.
from the could-they-force-me-a-sandwich dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
And What of the Others? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org], Flock [wikipedia.org], Amaya [wikipedia.org], SeaMonkey [wikipedia.org] or Avant Browser [wikipedia.org]? 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).
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not about fixing anything. It's about being childish and spiteful.
And goddamn, it's funny.
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not about being childish. The key problem is, Microsoft is currently using it's monopoly in one area to try to create monopolies in other areas, such as mail (MSN/Exchange), web standards (IE/ActiveX), web framework (SilverLight/.NET), games (XBox), music (Zune), DRM (WMV), office software and document formats (MSOffice, OOXML), etc. Lately, Microsoft has been hobbled in its attempt by the failure of Windows Vista, but if Windows 7 succeeds, you can expect Microsoft to return to its old ways and it may eventually succeed.
Microsoft's power to create new monopolies, lies in four areas:
* Exchange
* IE
* MS Office
* Ties to MSN (Not firm, but Microsoft has tried to tie users to Passport in the past)
Windows Admins and developers can automatically assume that if you have Windows, you'll use Exchange, IE, MS Office, and anything required by these apps.
If users are given choice, it's no longer a safe bet. It can be done in a fairly straightforward manner. Force Microsoft not to install any of these apps in the default Windows install. Then provide a supplementary CD, whereby users have a choice of picking a pre-selected list of software which would include:
* IE
* Opera
* Firefox
* Google Chrome
* Thunderbird
* Exchange Client
* OpenOffice
* MS Works or MS Office Trial Version (which can be unlocked by purchasing an activation code online)
with a brief blurb by each software vendor (not Microsoft) why you should pick their software over the others.
In such a situation, Microsoft would be on equal footing as other software, so it couldn't leverage it's monopoly. If people *choose* Microsoft software over the alternatives, then it will win on merit, not tie-in.
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just to play the devil's advocate here a little bit. Let MSFT Do that, but also mandate that Mozilla, Opera, Sun and others offer downloads of IE, MS Office and other suites alongside their downloads.
Why, what crime did they commit?
Yes, Microsoft has created a monopoly, yes they broke the law, but this is just plain silly.
It's silly to make criminals stop breaking the law and to punish them?
Ubuntu comes with Firefox preinstalled, could you say that Mozilla has monopoly on most default Ubuntu installation, the kind average users usually go for?
If you think "default browser used on an obscure desktop OS with no market share" constitutes a monopoly in the economic or legal sense you need to gain a better understanding of what we're all talking about.
Firing up apt-get and downloading and installing new browser in Linux is not much simpler than firing up IE and downloading Opera, Firefox, Safari and others.. Just my 2 euro cents...
You seem to be failing to understand how monopolies undermine free trade and destroy innovation and why there are laws prohibiting such actions. Notice the state of Web technologies implemented on the Web and compare them to a decade ago. Isn't it strange how there has been so slow of progress in such an important and ubiquitous high tech industry. Do you think that is normal or desirable? Do you want it to continue to stagnate?
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about fixing anything. It's about being childish and spiteful.
Actually, its about not being able to fix the problem, but still being obliged to be seen to do something.
The solution would be to split Microsoft up into separate companies so you didn't have the guys with 90% of the operating system market also producing applications - but that isn't within the EU's power.
So instead you get these half-baked "counting coup" rulings. Betcha that every PC supplier "independently" decides to install IE "separately" due to "customer demand".
And yes, if Apple ever capture 90% of the operating system market they should be subject to the same sort of rules. They've got a long way to go yet - even iPod/iTunes doesn't compare to Windows' dominance of the personal computer market.
Whether, say, Canonical could even theoretically reach the same point with Ubuntu is more interesting. Maybe they'd have to offer versions with (say) other desktop managers than Gnome. Oh, wait... :-)
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Go get your browser packaged in an operating system by virtue of it's quality, not by virtue of law.
That never stopped Internet Explorer.
Of course this is precisely what Opera is "whining" about.
Microsoft bundled a web browser specifically to kill the market.
This makes the whole web browser situation different then any
other slippery slope example you could conjure up.
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Right. Cause this is oh-so-user-friendly. If you were to ask 1000 "regular computer users", I'd bet over 50% wouldn't even know what a browser is. They think their computer *IS* the internet!
The only real solution is to let the VAR (ie. dell, hp, compaq, gateway, etc. etc.) bundle whatever they want. (which is what they've wanted to do for a while, but couldn't, else they'd get hit for higher prices for their OEM deals on the 'doze licenses)
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, lets see.
Maxthon and Avant are based on the Trident Layout Engine built into Windows. So including them in the list wouldn't exactly resolve the "You are forcing IE on people" complaint. While they do have their own code base, it's still based on the same engine from Microsoft.
Amaya is a test bed application for the W3C, I'm sure it's lovely for the few people who use it as their main browser, but it's not exactly what you'd foist onto the general poplulace.
Flock and SeaMonkey are both based on Mozilla (aka Firefox). And while they add value to the Firefox proposition, if the point is to provide an alternative to IE then both of them are 'over qualified'.
And while I agree with the arguement that a solution would be to not ship with anything installed and simply install their own, there are numerous disadvantages to that that you are overlooking. Such as the fact that most people new computers aren't going to know which one they want and simply pick the top one on the list. Who do you think that's going to be?
In fact, while I also agree that if this happens and the list is codified as the summary and article presents, it would hamper new comers, the truth is that covering the 'top' browsers also covers the top engines that 90% of the rest of the crowd use anyway.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All they really need to do is remove the executable. While the executable is little more than a wrapper for the HTML rendering library and most of the code that makes IE what it is is in this library, they could remove the executable, and probably satisfy the EU (and Opera for that matter). Microsoft like to fudge the issue by suggesting that any library that IE uses is part of IE, b
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, require Windows to enforce the "default browser" setting. I've had Microsoft products (occasionally from Office and all the time from explorer) open something in something other than my default browser. And that "other" is always IE (or Microsoft's IE engine, if not technically IE itself). What's the point of offering a "default" setting if they constantly ignore it? That alone should be sufficient to show that they force use of bundled software against the user's wishes.
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:5, Insightful)
NOT regulating a monopoly leads to disastrous consequences for all involved.
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is people here want to cripple Windows to boost Linux adoption.
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is people here want to cripple Windows to boost Linux adoption.
Windows is already crippled. We want to cripple Microsoft. Specifically, we want to cripple Microsoft's ability to foist Windows upon us in a way where it does not have to compete with alternatives based on merit. If there were truly a free market, there are plenty of Microsoft products that would disappear because they are really bad. If there are some that are actually competitive on merit, then everyone wins because the status quo of software in general is improved, but as it stands, Microsoft is now a boat anchor, dragging everyone down to their level because they have the power to prevent real competition.
As it stands, they don't need to better than anyone else, and trust me, they haven't bothered for the better part of a decade. What part of Vista is geared towards making customers happier than they were with XP? Maybe improved security, but frankly I don't even think it wins there because of UAE, er, UAC, which is just Microsoft's way of passing the buck to the user.
In the one place in the consumer world where a little true competition exists, the browser, we can already the Microsoft's product is losing market share rapidly.
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:4, Informative)
A monopoly means there is only one option
No, a monopoly means market dominance, to a level decided by a court. 90% market share, for example, could be considered a monopoly (for legal reasons). It doesn't mean there's no one else in the market, just extreme dominance.
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:5, Insightful)
Legal definition != dictionary definition. See Sherman anti-trust laws.
Parent
Re: IE integration with Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not so much that IE is integrated with windows, but instead Windows ships with a bunch of toolkits, one of which is a toolkit containing library routines for Web access. This includes establishing HTTP connections, doing the low level HTTP get, and a rendering engine to do something with HTML documents.
So this toolkit is used as a primary component of IE. Parts of it is also used by various other OS components, such as Windows Update (uses the HTTP libraries), the File manager (HTML rendering engine), etc. And, obviously, it is the toolkit that is used to build IE. So what Microsoft means by "removing IE will break Windows" is removing IE and it's associated librarys/toolkit will break the other components. But the part of IE that contains "main()" could be removed without affecting anything else.
But now we have another problem. Is a web browser a stand alone application, or is it a necessary part of a modern OS, same as a file manager and command shell? This gets down to the basic debate of what an OS is. Here's my definition:
OS Kernel -- the low level component that connects applications to hardware devices (device drivers), and defines / maintains data structures on those devices (think "file system" layer).
OS Utilities -- programs that allow a user to manipulate data structures the Kernel maintains (such as a file manager), and programs that facilitate user interaction with the hardware the kernel interfaces to (such as a utility to talk to a modem, or send a file to a printer port).
So an operating system is composed of the Kernel and OS Utilities. An Operating Environment (OE) is a combination of an OS with a set of applications that facilitate performing tasks that nearly all users of that computer would need to do. So text editors and paint programs fall in this category (although a text editor may straddle this category and OS Utilities).
Now the question is, where does an ftp client, telnet, ssh, etc. fit in? And does a web browser fit the same category as ftp?
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:5, Insightful)
By forcing the users to make a choice, it allows Opera to attempt to sway users to choose them.
If the EU were wise, they would establish a repository that they fund, obligate MS to have their OS connect to this repo when offering the user the choice of browser, and allow browser creators to have their offering added to that repository. They could keep network costs low by allowing ISPs to mirror the repository, and they could offload administrative costs by requiring the browser creators to pay a reasonable fee when their browser is added.
The solution they're describing isn't really going far enough, because in a sense it transforms a monopoly into a cartel, with members chosen by the EU.
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:4, Informative)
By forcing the users to make a choice, it allows Opera to attempt to sway users to choose them.
They already have to pick between IE and Telnet:80 . Exactly how many options does Microsoft have to provide for people to sort through before they magically decide they want to download Opera?
Parent
Re:Yeah, like that will work. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Yeah, like that will work. (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, the law as it stands, under the interpretation and rulings that are in effect regarding MS in the European market, does call for action to be taken.
It's not about whether competition is "possible". It's about whether two criteria are met:
(1) Does MS have a monopoly position in some market? (Answer: the US and EU both believe MS has a monopoly in the OS market. I disagere with some of the reasoning, but that is the current position of the courts.)
(2) If MS has a monopoly position in some market, are they leveraging it to gain a competitive advantage in another market? (Answer: Bundling the web browser with the OS meets that definition.)
The law doesn't say "you can use a monopoly position in one market to gain advantage in another as long as you don't get 100% market share in the second market", just as the law doesn't say "you can hit people you don't like in the head as long as they don't die". Moreover, the law isn't about protecting Opera, or Firefox, or any other software company; its purpose is to protect consumers by ensuring they get to make an informed choice about the products they buy -- i.e. keeping competition on a level playing field.
Now if you want to argue that the anti-monopoly laws and/or the rulings under which they're applied are flawed, I'd agree; but to blame Opera for expecting the courts to follow through on enforcing the rulings they've made doesn't make any sense at all.
Parent
Re:Yeah, like that will work. (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [mozillazine.org] with your assertion [mozillazine.org]:
"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.
Parent
Re:Yeah, like that will work. (Score:4, Insightful)
Even more so. Since IE is free, I didn't pay for it. Even if it takes up a couple of hundred megs of disk space, that's a trivial amount seeing as I can't easily buy a disk that's less than 300G anymore so it's not the same as a car taking up space in my driveway...maybe I'd give you a roller skate, but only a single one...and, it's buried in the dirt in that potted plant over there. As for others causing damage and me being responsible, how does that work? Can you point to a single case in which someone utilized an unutilized IE on someone else's machine and that second person had to provide restitution to some third party? Can you explain how that would work legally?
BTW, if someone steals my car and does damage with it, I'm not responsible. Know how I know? Happened to my stepfather a few years back. Someone stole his car, and during the high speed chase slowed down, jumped out and allowed the car to continue down a busy street where it pretty much managed to hit or swipe every parked car for three blocks. So, you'll have to come up with an analogy that closely mirrors reality in order for it to work.
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:5, Insightful)
And the gap between IE6 and IE7 was about five years, yet IE is still estimated to have somewhere in the 70-80% range for total browser market-share. Had actual competition not started coming along a couple years into the gap, we'd probably still be waiting.
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:5, Insightful)
How does this action satisfy the Opera folks who requested it?
It doesn't completely, but it does help them significantly. Bundling Firefox with Windows means developers can count on all new machines shipping with a reasonably standards compliant browser and they can instruct people on how to switch to using it if they visit a age using IE without them having to download and install software. This promotes standards on the Web and means Opera can start spending less development money on working around the intentionally broken Web and more making real improvements to their products. If you recall, intentionally subverted standards were a big part of Opera's complaint.
Parent
Re:And some of you (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO, this the Firefox bundling is kind of missing the point; what about bundling OS's with other-company hardware? Is this not also an imposition of 'choice'?
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seeing IE's market share drop is always nice for clueful web devs.
Fixed that for you.
I know plenty of web developers who create horrible, broken pages because they render nicely on IE. When I say something along the lines of "you're not even close to being XHTML complaint" they respond with something along the lines of "I hate Firefox! I can never get my layouts to look nice."
Parent
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:5, Insightful)
Come to think of it, it would be poetic if all the EU member states rewrote every single one of their government web pages in order to make them all 100% XHTML 1.0 Strict ... every government service, every government program, every application form, every information page, hopelessly inaccessible unless you are using a browser that actually renders properly.
Never mind forcing MS to bundle a different browser. Force them to follow standards.
Parent
Why so hooked up on the browser? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand all the hubbub either. So MS bundles a browser with their operating system ... so what?
Back in the DOS days, word processing software didn't have a spellchecker built in. You had to buy a separate spellchecker if you wanted that functionality and the spellchecker companies had a nice little profit centre for themselves. Then one day, word processing software started coming with a spellchecker built right in! Sure it was bad for the people selling spellcheckers, but it was a win for the co
Re:Why so hooked up on the browser? (Score:5, Insightful)
The "so what" is that Microsoft has intentionally stopped competing in an attempt to derail the industry. IE7 shipped without a variety of 10 year old standards that Microsoft themselves helped write. IE8 will be released soon with the exact same choices made. About all that has improved is a bit of support for CSS.
Any other company would immediately lose their market share for pulling such a stunt. But in Microsoft's case, their browser is forced upon millions of users who are unaware that alternatives exist. In result, the market is unable to use competition as a balancing force.
IMHO, what the EU (and probably the US antitrust division) should do is force Microsoft to remove the IE executable and require OEMs to ship an alternative browser (from an EU/US approved list of competitors) until such a time as IE sufficiently meets the W3C standards to compete. (To be decided upon by the antitrust commission.) Note that I am not suggesting that Microsoft be forced to meet the newer HTML5 standard that other browsers are already participating in. Merely the standards that Microsoft committed to, then failed to follow through on.
Alternatively, the antitrust commission could force the dissolution of Internet Explorer into a separate company with a new executive team from outside of Microsoft and sufficient initial funding. That company could license the Internet Explorer product back to Microsoft for inclusion into the core of Windows, but not allowed to actually show an IE icon without an OEM deal. Microsoft themselves would be restricted from developing an HTML rendering engine for the next 10 years.
This would force this new company to compete in the open market. Without the coffers of Microsoft-proper to keep the IE company afloat, I'm sure that it would only be a short while before Microsoft realizes that it would be cheaper to bundle an alternative rendering engine. Meanwhile, the IE company is going to have to work hard on standards, competitive features, and cross-platform support to convince the market that they are worth using.
Parent
Re:Why so hooked up on the browser? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
That's the stupidest example one could find (Score:4, Insightful)
A calculator doesn't read any files, while a media player or a web browser depend heavily, and set the standards in formats.
Parent
It still amazes (Score:4, Interesting)
well (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Restricted browser (Score:3, Insightful)
If the user is provided with a list like: ....
Choose browser to install:
(1) Internet Explorer 8.9
(2) Firefox 3.6
(3) Opera 9.2
Which one will they choose? I would say most likely, 1, because it's from Microsoft (and it will be top of the list) - even if it is a piece of rubbish.
It would be far better if Microsoft provided a restricted simple browser that could be used to download other software - a sort of graphical version of lynx.
Re:Restricted browser (Score:4, Funny)
A simple and restricted browser? IE6 perhaps? We already have it and look what it does [howtocreate.co.uk].
Parent
Also (Score:5, Funny)
How 'bout requiring that each copy of Vista ship with a Ubuntu disk labeled 'Vista Service Pack 2'.
Bundling everything... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
compatible (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Discourage dependence on the browser? Bootstraps? (Score:4, Insightful)
Astroturfing? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Just a lot of blow hards who can't read law (Score:5, Insightful)
In case anyone is wondering what the bruhaha is all about, every time someone talks about Microsoft and Bundling, someone else has to bring up Apple and bundling, or someone else and bundling, and asking why it's illegal.
These posts come from a variety of sources:
1) Free market zealots who think anti-trust laws are not a good idea (you crazy libertarians know who you are)
2) Anti-Apple/linux/insert-company-here zealots who have a beef to pick with said company.
3) People who can't wrap their heads around what a monopoly is and can't understand law no matter how many times you beat them with the book.
4) A few well placed astro turfers who probably get the discussion going in the first place.
5) Anti-bundling zealots who will slam any bundle that locks in customers.
Only the last one has a decent argument, and it's an ethical argument not a legal one. Legally, Microsoft is a monopoly. They've been declared so by the state. They have also abused their monopoly power by leveraging their dominance in one market (operating systems) to crush competition in another (web browsers).
You can't call Apple a monopoly in Macs because macs compete against PCs, so while I agree unbundling the operating system from the hardware could be a boon to customers in the market, you can't legally force it. You might be able to call Apple a monopoly in the music player business. However, I can download any music from any service that supports the MP3 format and push that into my iPhone/iPod. Music from iTunes music store is AAC which is an open standard and any developer could create a music player for that. Also music is no longer DRMed from the music store so that takes "fairplay" DRM out of the mix.
You might be able to work an argument that Apple needs to open the iPod protocols so that someone can code an alternative to iTunes, because iTunes is very convenient and integrates with the iPod. The iPod is paid hardware, leveraging free software (iTunes). If the iPod had 30% marketshare, I'd say get over it, but it has over 80%, and just maybe someone out there has some innovating to do to make something better than iTunes that can sync music with your iPod.
Parent
The actual text (Score:5, Informative)
The linked article is rather sensationalized, the summary even more so
Here's the actual text. It's from Microsoft's own SEC filings [shareholder.com], 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.
Why Microsoft should be Proactive (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is an alarm call for Microsoft to be more proactive on the alternative browser situation.
First, off, let's discuss a couple of nightmare scenarios that Microsoft would like to avoid:
- A vanilla copy of Firefox is bundled with Windows. A large sum of users are connecting to the Internet through this browser and there are quality and security issues which Microsoft now has limited capacity to fix or address. If Mozilla, for instance, complemented the Unix security model well while poorly addressing the Windows security model (completely hypothetical), a third party would then be inserting its own Achilles' Heel into the Windows platform. It's not that it WILL but that it CAN.
- If Microsoft is forced to ship either Chrome or Safari, they will be including products that are actively attacking their product share outside of the web browser market. These are wolves at the door for Microsoft, since Safari is basically a "switch to Mac" ad and Chrome is a "use google instead of Live" ad. I'd also like to point out that Safari does not play nicely with Windows' font rendering or accessibility.
- A litigatively determined requirement leads to a comical freakshow of third party browsers, leading to a free-for-all user experience nightmare, destroying the unity of the system.
My proposals for a solution:
- Microsoft can be proactive on the Mozilla Firefox product right now. They should first focus on having a testing structure for their own release engineered version of Firefox, and second consider placing a few developers on Firefox's security team to look out for their best interests. If Microsoft supports a more "Camino" approach to the Firefox problem, they could support their own open-source fork of the Firefox product that focuses on better integration with the Windows 7 environment while maintaining the standards-oriented compatibility with the web platform. This would be an ideal solution since Windows Live and Silverlight, etc. are already focused on Firefox support for Microsoft plugins, etc. Furthermore, having a presence on the Firefox team would allow Microsoft to address security issues much more quickly while improving face.
- Alternatively, I believe Microsoft could find an even cheaper and less idealistically challenging approach in simply licensing Opera. Why not? With their small team and focus on professional implementation, an Opera-branded Windows 7 specialized browser could be a ticket out of monopoly-town while not entirely losing the benefits of having an in-house browser team. The Opera team is smaller and centrally managed vs. the Firefox team, allowing Microsoft to work very actively alongside the developer in seeing features and compatibility issues worked out (ie Silverlight compatibility). Perhaps a more controllable and less wild product would be the ideal means of keeping control of the quality and security of the Windows Platform while maintaining a competive edge in usability.
Also, what Microsoft stands to lose:
If OEMs are left to deal with the notion of embedding third party browsers instead of Microsoft, they lose their control and their ability to maintain the quality and integrity of their platform. Imagine what OEMs would do with an open source product like Firefox-- there could be Dell Firefox, HP Firefox, etc. Microsoft needs to reign this problem in an preempt it with a workable solution before it falls out of their hands.
And finally, I'd like to underline the importance of maintaining Internet Explorer as a product: It's of the utmost importance that Microsoft offer a supported way to access the web within their platform for both enterprise IT considerations, which Firefox ignores, as well as the process of support and security patching. Keeping Microsoft branding in the web is important for their company's existing relevance in emerging industries. Also, I'd like to add that Microsoft participating in the "standards-based" web game will result in a better documented an
Re:Why just microsoft? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Safari on the mac by default... (Score:5, Informative)
*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 [slashdot.org]...)
Parent