EU Could Force Bundling Firefox With Windows 650
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."
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:2, Informative)
Maxthon is a shell, Flock - Firefox, Amaya... that's not really a 'browser', etc.
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.
Re:And What of the Others? (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, but really that's just to suggest it's more tightly integrated with the OS than it actually is.
Re:Un-bundling would be better (Score:2, Informative)
Force MS to use an actual app instead of the activex in IE for windows update. Why anyone thought it was a good idea to use a web browser to do a system update is beyond me.
Windows Vista has a specific application for updates, it no longer uses a browser with active x.
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.
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:3, Informative)
will the EU require Mac to carry IE so IE can have a chance to being competative on the Mac?
There is no modern Mac port of IE.
Re:It still amazes (Score:3, Informative)
KDE bundles Konqueror. Gnome has Epiphany. There are on binaries for Windows for either of them.
FYI, Konqueror has been ported to Windows as part of the "KDE on Windows Project [kde.org]".
(Not that I'm arguing Konqueror should be bundled with Windows; I'm merely pointing out that it could be done.)
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:2, Informative)
Except that things are already changing; FF has been gaining marketshare, and the web is becoming more and more compliant.
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.
Windows is a monopoly. (Score:3, Informative)
IE with Windows is a monopoly?
No, Windows is a monopoly in the desktop OS market as several courts have already ruled. Since it is illegal to tie products from separate, pre-existing markets with products from a monopolized market, bundling IE with Windows is blatantly illegal.
Why isn't the EU going after Apple? And on that note, why am I FORCED to use Safari on my iPod Touch?
They're considering it with regard to iPods and iTunes, but iPods probably don't constitute a monopoly in the EU.
Me thinks the EU needs to take a good long look at Apple if they are going to sanction Microsoft!
They are looking, but since the case against Apple is fairly weak, while the one against MS is open and shut and has lasted longer, expect to see them convict MS first by several years at least.
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]...)
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.
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, Apple don't have a monopoly in the mp3 player market, sure they're the biggest player but there's plenty of competition and innovation outside of the reality distortion field. This is less true in the US but on a global scale the iPod is by no means the only game in town, if you go to a store and ask the sales drone for an mp3 player chances are he won't just show you an iPod and tell you there are no real alternatives.
Now, with Windows for a long time it's been the only game in town, the fact that IE shot up from almost no users to being the number one web browser right after MS started bundling it with Windows is a great example of that.
And for most people the issue with MS and Windows isn't just that they're a monopoly, it's that they've made a habit of abusing this monopoly status to gain an unfair advantage.
/Mikael
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:3, Informative)
Don't know about Litestep, but I yelled foul long ago, when I decided to stop using MS technology and to stop helping people who choose to use it. My OS already comes with a repository such as I've described, which is the primary reason I chose it.
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:3, Informative)
Nope. In such a situation, most people will not choose what they do not know and so will still choose IE, MS Office, etc.
The damage is already done for current users. I do agree that new users would be more inclined to choose "anything" since they wouldn't know the options, but even so, you fall into the "I'm using what everyone else is using" and you're back to square one too.
Re:well (Score:3, Informative)
They have between eighty-five and ninety-five percent overall market share in operating systems, depending on whose estimates you look at and how timely they are. In businesses and government, it's likely higher. It was considered utterly remarkable in December when they dipped below 90%. Their share in overall office software is higher. Their share in Windows office software is probably about 100%.
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:3, Informative)
So everyone should have to spend extraordinary amounts of money because of Microsoft's illegal actions? No thanks.
Correct. Bundling in itself is not a problem. The problem is Microsoft abusing its monopoly in one market to kill the competition in another market. MS knew that the browser as a platform was a threat (ahead of their time perhaps?), which is why they wanted to absolutely destroy Netscape.
Re:No internet how about that (Score:3, Informative)
Definitely. OEMs should decide which browser to bundle. Microsoft broke the law, which is why their browser activities are being targeted. Except letting OEMs decide would not "stick to the EU". It would actually be great!
No need. OEMs will install a browser.
Whether they lock down "shit" or not is irrelevant to whether they are a monopoly or not.
False. MS is guilty of abusing its monopoly in one market to destroy competition in a different market.
You are either extremely ignorant or a Microsoft shill. You need to look up monopolies, as defined by law. By law, only a 60-70% market share is required to be considered a monopoly.
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:3, Informative)
While IE 8 is not superior to Firefox 3, it is much more standards compliant.
IE8... more compliant than FF3? [wikipedia.org]
This has happened before... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:IE with Windows is a monopoly? (Score:3, Informative)
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?
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.
Re:Yeah, like that will work. (Score:2, Informative)
It seems that only 1,787 copies of Windows XP N were sold so far in 2006. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/european/04-24-06windowsxpnsalesfs.mspx [microsoft.com]