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."
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:1, Insightful)
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.
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:And What of the Others? (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually I'd be glad if they shipped windows with anything else than IE, I really could care less if it's Firefox, Opera or lynx.
Seeing IE's market share drop is always nice for us web devs.
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:2, Insightful)
Honestly - for all the talk of "open market", "less regulation", "get off my lawn", etc - we sure are big on "force MS to integrate". Either we are for less regulation and let the market decide, or we are for gov't intervention. Again - FireFox has a pretty good market share without gov't intervention.
By forcing MS to put in FireFox, as the OP said, what about the other browsers? I do not want 50 browsers on my computer. I enjoy FireFox and ONLY use IE when I have to (MS Exchange for work).
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:1, Insightful)
However, I'd take this logic even further. Surely if bundling browsers in Windows is bad, the it is bad in all operating systems, and this rule should apply to all operating systems. Secondly, surely if it is bad for browsers it is bad for other additional features such as media players, calculators, ftp clients, image viewers etc.
Also I do not think the package manager idea solves the issue, people would still want to install software when not online and who decides what limited set of media can be on the disc, and who gets to decide which programs are included in the online package manager?
I know there is a view among many Slashdotters that any measure that harms Microsoft is good, and any excuse for doing so should be used to the maximum extent. However in this case I can see no reason to treat Window's inclusion of IE any differently to OS X's inclusion of Finder.
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)
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.
So when I buy a car.... (Score:1, Insightful)
So when I buy a car in the EU instead of having the factory built radio, are they going to have 3rd pardy radios installed in it as well?
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.
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.
Re:Why so hooked up on the browser? (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 consumer.
Operating systems evolve ... they start including things that weren't included in the past ... things like internet browsers. If the (free, bundled, zero cost) browser doesn't suit your needs or tastes, it takes less than 5 minutes to download and install Firefox or Chrome.
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.
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.
Why not use windows update? (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows already has a package-manager sort of thing build in with windows update. I won't argue about how it compares to the various linux offerings, but it would certainly work for this.
They've already removed IE from the Windows Update process - why not put IE and third party browsers up there and let people decide for themselves. Third party drivers are available there, so the process to decide what gets on there is already in place.
Re:Why just microsoft? (Score:4, Insightful)
More crap (Score:2, Insightful)
Discourage dependence on the browser? Bootstraps? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lynx (Score:1, Insightful)
As a browser Lynx has been surpassed by better text browsers such as Links [sourceforge.net].
And really, I don't think anyone would have a problem using it.
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:5, Insightful)
NOT regulating a monopoly leads to disastrous consequences for all involved.
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?
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that all they are really doing is having fun with the precedents they set way back when they forced MS to release a version of windows without media player. Remember that this isn't yet decided on, it is very likely that this is just a reminder not to complain about penalties imposed being unreasonable, demonstrating in advance that it could have been a lot worse.
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."
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:2, Insightful)
Or we look for a middle ground. Black and White never work all that well, shades of gray however do.
If we are for open markets - we should have let the banks die. We did not, we looked for a middle ground.
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.
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.
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about fixing anything. It's about being childish and spiteful.
And goddamn, it's funny.
Quite true and insightful. Who _cares_ what the default browser is. If it's Firefox, then Firefox will have an "unfair advantage". Go get your browser packaged in an operating system by virtue of it's quality, not by virtue of law.
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:3, Insightful)
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'?
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.
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is people here want to cripple Windows to boost Linux adoption.
Re:Why so hooked up on the browser? (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm selling a calculator app I made, it's a bit better than the one in windows. Maybe if I complained, I could get the EU to force MS to release a version sans-calculator so people will buy my product!
You have to agree with the above sentiments if you think that competition is a right.
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.
Re:Bundling everything... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ha, since when have any computer makers REMOVED stuff? My problem isn't with the stuff MS bundles (that's fairly trivial), it's with all the crap-ware that companies like HP, Dell, etc. throw in ON TOP of that. That's where the REAL bloat comes from.
As for IE, I'm just fine with it. As a poster jokingly pointed out above (but made an actual insightful point), how else can you get to Mozilla's website and download Firefox if you don't have Internet Explorer installed?
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.
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.
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:5, Insightful)
Legal definition != dictionary definition. See Sherman anti-trust laws.
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.
Re:Bundling everything... (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess nobody cares about the countless applications which depend on installed apps like notepad or iexplorer.exe to get stuff done? Sure, those apps may be badly coded, but they exist and people want to continue running them.
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:1, Insightful)
You missed the whole point, though. Including ANY web browser poses the same problem as bundling Internet Explorer. What if MS made a deal with Google and started 'bundling' only Chrome. Would it be okay because it isn't Microsoft?
This is like the "Default Search" feature in Windows. It includes things like Google, Yahoo, MSN, Lycos, AOL, etc.. but what about any other search engine? They aren't Microsoft but they still only include the currently 'popular' engines. Are we sure that these companies didn't pay to have themselves listed as MS alternatives?
There is a bit of childish glee from thinking of other browsers installed or offered by default. However, having come largely from idealist thought, this is really no better than bundling IE. It is practically better because it breaks a monopoly, but it still isn't 'ideally' correct.
The small technical glitch is that, if there is no browser bundled, there is no 'easy' way to get any other browser.
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.
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.
This needs to be the choice of the OEMs. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, I hate Internet Explorer probably more than anyone else in the universe, and would love to see it exorcised from windows... but this is going overboard.
It should be OEMs that choose to install Firefox or another browser. Forcing them to install all other browsers is just as bad as MS forcing them to always install IE with windows.
Besides, perhaps I want a computer with *NO* web browser! (there are plenty of cases where a computer would be used for a specific purpose that doesn't involve web access)
Now, in all fairness, there is a good likelihood that OEMs are still quietly being pressured by MS to not install other browsers or even other non-MS software. If that is the case then this core issue needs to be addressed first.
At most, perhaps OEMs should get some incentive to install Firefox/Opera, but should not be required.
What REALLY needs to happen - IE needs to become a fully 100% add/removable application just like any other normal Windows accessory. Check? It is installed. Unchecked? It is removed. This would be in the standard Windows distribution (not some rare unwanted version like Windows N). CAB installer files would be on the CD or hard drive. OEMs could choose to install IE, if not they would likely install some other browser. That is choice. That is what it should have been like from day 1. (Apps that embed IE need to die off in the long run, but you could go to add/remove programs check the IE box and then they would run)
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... :-)
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:3, Insightful)
Which web browser would you like to install?
[x] Internet Explorer (Recommended)
[ ] Firefox
[ ] Chrome
[ ] Opera
etc.
Or even worse...
Choose your installation type:
[x] Standard (Recommended)
[ ] Custom (For advanced users only)
Most people would choose the standard option. Either because it's automatically selected, or because it says recommended, or because custom sounds scary, or simply because the user just wants to get a web browser and just hits "Next".
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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.
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:Yeah, like that will work. (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
If by illegally force you mean put their own software on their own proprietary operating system, then I guess, yes. I am a linux person myself - but making a company put a competitors software on their operating system merely because the majority of users prefer one OS to another is hokey. You're basically punishing a corporation for developing a product people like.
You might say that people would like other products if they tried them, to that I say - then fight your battle where it belongs, in marketing, not in someone else's product.
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
This "free market forces are failing because X is not the best product on the market" is a red herring. Partially because nobody said the free market would choose necessarily the BEST product (look at the music people listen to) but also that "best" is subjective and it often comes down to preference, familiarity, and other factors. The simple fact is that anyone can switch to Linux right now if they were so inclined.
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.
The reason they don't "need to be better than anyone else" is partially because a diverse selection of operating systems creates problems with compatibility, forcing the market to rally around few big players. Another reason is simply lack of consumer education.
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.
Great. So why waste all the energy on Microsoft including a (mandatory, in this day and age) browser integrated in the OS that is already being used less and less by people.
I find it interesting how people play so fast and loose with words here, saying things like "true competition" when Linux, FreeBSD, and a few others ARE true competition to Windows. The reason more people are adopting Firefox and not Linux itself is one of, again, consumer education and the difficulty of switching. Hence, a lot of slashdotters, probably not being entirely honest with themselves in regards to their motivations, want to handicap Windows to benefit Linux.
Re:well (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the EU needs to go back to determine if Microsoft still has a monopoly.
Legally, there is no question. They have monopolistic influence by a huge margin.
Microsoft no longer has all that much control even on it's own platform, much less all desktop PCs, given Mac's rapidly increasing market share.
You have fundamentally misunderstood the market. OS X's market share is irrelevant unless Apple starts licensing it to OEMs or offering large site licenses on generic hardware. If Dell (and other OEM customers) can't license OS X to put on the systems they ship, it is not in the market and does not matter to MS's influence.
Furthermore, if monopolies are characterized by a lack of competition for a good or service, then why is there a huge rise in the popularity of different web browsers.
Again, you've fundamentally misunderstood the second market involved. MS can have 5% of the browser market and it doesn't make a difference to this case. MS is being accused of using their monopoly on desktop OS's to skew the Web browser market. It doesn't matter if they have monopoly influence in the Web browser market or not.
Microsoft has lost desktop PC marketshare, lost broswer share, lost laptop share. If they held a monopoly in the 90s, it's clear to me they no longer do.
You seem a bit confused as to what the term "monopoly" means in the legal sense and to economists. You also seem a bit confused about what markets are involved and how their actions in tying those markets constitute antitrust abuse.
And if you ask most folks in the Valley now, they don't fear Microsoft anymore either.
Ask MS's customers how much influence MS has. They are the measure. Can the CEO Dell or HP tell MS to go take a flying leap and not be fired? I thought not.
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?