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."
It still amazes (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Un-bundling would be better (Score:3, Interesting)
This would:
OK but if the system doesn't come with a web browser to begin with, how do I install FF ? I like the idea of this being a setup wizard. On first boot it asks which browser you want to install, downloads the appropriate files, and installs. By all means have IE as default, but allow the user to select another browser if so desired. This would also I hope get rid of the 10 000 (slight exaggeration) different browser add-ons commonly found on new systems.
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.
hi twitter (Score:1, Interesting)
You should seek professional psychiatric help.
Are seriously asking this question? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not everybody uses a "productivity tool." Or a media center / player. Not even a word processor.
But everybody uses a browser. Using the internet means using a browser at some point.
Plus, Microsoft has clearly been a hindrance to web development and standards by letting IE6 rot for 5 years. Even IE7 and IE8 are behind the times. They suck rock. Yet they still have huge market share due to the monopoly power.
This is one of the clear areas where the EU has a mandate to enforce cooperation, competition in the marketplace and interoperability.
The only way to break Microsoft monopoly (Score:3, Interesting)
Is to stop bundling of software with hardware. When you buy a computer, you would get two tickets, one for the computer hardware, and one for the operating system plus applications. And you would have by law the option to buy one without the other. This would have many advantages.
- You would know exactly how much you pay for windows, so you would be able to make a judgement about utility vs price.
- it would be your call whether to purchase windows or something else when you buy a computer. Right now, that's not the case, most of the time you will not have the option not to buy windows.
- It would make much more difficult for Microsoft to link pricing with exclusive contracts, as the operating system would be chosen by the buyer and not the computer maker.
I think that would work, and considering the different remedies that have been looked at in order to solve the abuse of monopoly position by Microsoft, I think it is not too harsh compared to breaking up the company or forcing some competing software into Microsoft installation disks.
Once Microsoft stops abusing its monopoly, I have nothing against them bundling whatever browser they fancy on their OS.
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:3, Interesting)
On that same note... I can play any MP3 in an iPod just as easily as I can play it in another off-brand player. I cannot however play a Windows game or use a Windows Application in a generic off-brand operating system without reverse engineering Windows. There's no standard format and library for executable files. If they could force MS to follow a specific set of standard libraries and/or release the interface documentation for such libraries and files, then we'd have truer competition.
You'd also have to invalidate all patents related to them. Patents are good for start up companies and small inventors, but when they are used to "protect" a majority holder, they are abusive.
Unbundle Windows instead! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:2, Interesting)
And they're failing to create a monopoly in most of those areas, failing miserably in some cases.
Re:Discourage dependence on the browser? Bootstrap (Score:3, Interesting)
That was one nice thing that they fixed in Vista - the update mechanism is tied to a tool rather than to the browser and an ActiveX application.
Now I can only hope they untie the browser from the OS in Windows 7, but I don't think that's going to happen.
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.
Re:And What of the Others? (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft may not have 'destroyed' Netscape, but they did destroy Netscape's business model. That's the reason there was no Netscape 5.0. And there was one and only one reason Microsoft entered the browser market in the first place. They saw the browser as an alternative platform, and they wanted to make sure that as that platform grew it was Windows-only (or Windows-mostly).
There's no reason to include IE in Windows these days, except for to continue to support non-standard sites that require it. And the sooner sites stop requiring IE, the better. In fact, Opera's business model doesn't really need for people to use their browser on Windows machines either.
It's not about desktop applications or even web browsers per se and not allowing a monopolist to corrupt those standards in order to advance their monopoly interests. It's about following true standards in a networked world. As long as WWW standards are followed, Opera's mobile business can succeed just as well as if they were bundled with Windows.
That's why arguments like 'why not force brand X file browser onto Windows as well' are red herrings. Using Windows explorer instead of XTree will have no effect on your ability to communicate with the outside world or vice versa.
A more interesting example would be desktop search. Using Microsoft's vs. Google's, searches for desktop stuff shouldn't really matter, except that both attempt to combine desktop and internet search results, and to use info gleaned from the desktop to improve their network search algorithms. At least part of Microsoft's motivation with desktop search is to harm Google and weaken them as a competitor in another area.