Google Joins EU Antitrust Case Against Microsoft 373
gubm writes "Google said it wants to help the European Commission prove its antitrust charges against Microsoft regarding the bundling of the Internet Explorer browser with Windows."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Google Joins EU Antitrust Case Against Microsoft
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry
Nothing new (Score:2, Insightful)
Companies typically interest themselves with anything that weakens their competitors. Google must be losing confidence in their ability to compete on merits alone.
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it's not as if Google was leveraging their market dominance in search against MS.
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, and they were gonna cooperate and do what?
It was a detente to try and bleed MS of some extra cash while saddling them with Yahoo. Ballmer, not being retarded, didn't take the bait, and stuck to his guns. Yahoo had it's chance, and the shareholders have only one person to blame for blocking the deal.
Yahoo is floundering and NO ONE will come to its aid. When it's over, companies will pick at the corpse and take whatever chunks they deem worthwhile.
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>Google would rather compete on the merits of their products than the lockin of the browser.
I agree. Google's browser has little chance of success when it is more difficult to obtain (download/install) than Microsoft's browser (already there and operational). Google simply wants to support the EU's attempt to bring an even playing field to the market.
More about services than the browser. (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, "In order to make Google Maps work in IE, Google had to develop ExCanvasâ"a complex library that implements many of the Canvas element's features with VML, Microsoft's proprietary alternative to SVG."(Article [arstechnica.com])
In fact, most people seem to agree that Chrome is more intended to push adoption of newer technologies than as an actual end product.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Those factors don't seem to be impeding Firefox's progress.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sure, but we could always install firefox through the many and varied security holes that IE users generously provide for us!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can either force a choice or make a choice. If you force a choice, you're expecting the user is competent to make that choice.
"Why cant you just choose it for me?! I don't understand computers. I don't care whether my RAM is samsung or hynix. I don't understand RAM timings. DDR2.. DDR3, whats all that? I don't understand Firefox ,Opera, Safari, IE. Just make it work !"
Forcing a user to choose just confuses them.
Ah.. wait there is a simple reason everyone is against microsoft:
Monopoly, MS is Evil... "bla
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think you quite understand the whole reason for this particular anti-trust lawsuit. Having IE bundled with Windows is not the main problem. It's not even that Microsoft is using Windows to for IE on users. The big problem is that they are using this forced-upon-the-user browser to control a separate market, the WEB. If IE were even remotely as close to the web standards as Firefox/Safari/Opera/Chrome, then there wouldn't be a big problem.
What they are doing is using an OS monopoly to control the des
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Interesting)
Google must be losing confidence in their ability to compete on leveraged monopoly market positions alone.
Fixed.
(As I've noted elsewhere, I disagree with some of the finding-of-fact material used to claim MS has a monopoly. But, the courts disagree with me, both here and in the EU. That being the case, competitors in those markets have every right to expect enforcement of the law consistent with those findings.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nobody outside of the windows team even has access to the OS source code
False, several people in my company have access to the OS source code and they do not even work for Microsoft. If you believe that MS's own employees can't get access if they want, you're crazy.
MS is a monopoly, in its purest and evilest form, and it's provably hurting our ecosystem. In point of fact their OS is total crap, but no one can adopt the competitors because of the ball and chain.
I would allow them to live if they open up devi
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
"MS is not a monopoly. Just because the linux nerds like to troll out this piece of FUD doesn't make it true"
It has been found by both American and EU authorities that MS holds a monopoly in the OS market and leverages that monopoly in other markets, which in both places is illegal. As far as the law is concerned, the court findings make it true, any debate between you and the "linux nerds" aside.
"Operating Systems that run on x86 processors"
In evaluating competition in the market, the US court did consider MacOS (which at the time did not run on x86, though it does today); so at best your claim is misleading.
"So if we take operating systems that run on Power PC processors, [...]"
Let's assume, for a moment, that the court would identify that as a distinct market. Let's further assume that they would agree that Apple has an effective monopoly in that market. Neither of those is a slam dunk, but suppose they're both found true.
Now as soon as Apple leverages that monopoly to competitive advantage in another market, you'll have a useful parallel.
"NO JUDGE EVER has deemed Microsoft as a monopoly on office software, developer tools, windows mobile, game consoles, etc etc."
That they compete in markets where they aren't a monopoly doesn't immunize them against (or have anything to do with) charges that they abused the monopoly position they are found to hold in the OS market.
"Office, Visual Studio, etc etc have very limited advantage from running on Windows. They could run on whichever OS was the most popular. AFAIK they don't get any special favors from the OS team. Nobody outside of the windows team even has access to the OS source code"
The court is concerning itself with marketing advantage, not technical advantage. So this is really a moot point, but:
MS does more to separate its OS team from its other operations than it used to, as a result of antitrust rulings. However, to say that other teams don't have access to the source code is incorrect; and any suggestion that the OS and app teams wouldn't be "doing special favors" for each other absent anti-trust regulation is contradicted by history.
"If any of them use undocumented APIs then they don't ship"
I'm skeptical of that claim, but I don't know. What I do know for a fact is, they do ship products that use undocumented features of "documented" API's. (i.e. they pass in undocumented values for control parameters that completely change what the function does.) I've seen it first hand.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't.
Believe what you want.
I don't know what "history" you're talking about
If you don't know the history, you don't know enough context. The point is, when MS is not restrained by anti-trust rulings they do all of the things you say they don't do. So even if they were doing none of them now (which is not the case), that wouldn't be an argument against enforcing anti-trust rulings against them; it would be proof that the enforcement is having some effect.
Tell us what you've seen
I did tell you what I'
Re: (Score:2)
insert sardonic snort ... (Score:4, Interesting)
'Microsoft today argued that US House and Senate Judiciary Committees that the proposed Google/Yahoo deal, claiming that Yahoo's agreement to support ads through a non-exclusive deal is anti-competitive and would allegedly hurt innovation [electronista.com]'
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess you're trying to bait people, but I think you're right on both counts. Google has a number of projects that they've been working on that depend on moving web standards forward. Microsoft's inclusion of IE as the default browser in the most dominant desktop OS, paired with Microsoft's refusal to implement web standards, have clearly made it difficult for Google to build the sort of business they'd like to build.
It seems to me that Google has valid grounds for complaint that they can't increase the merits of their own products, due largely to IE's weakness, so I can't imagine how they could have the confidence to compete "on merits alone"? That's why they need to push anything that might encourage people to use a real web browser that works properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Google must be losing confidence in their ability to compete on merits alone.
I think Google is pissed by Microsofts recent actions* and wants to send a big "How dare you fsck with us!" message back to Redmond. I totally support Google is in this case and even think it is the right thing to do, because Google is a company that is strong enough to fight back where other misfortunate companies could not. To think that (of all companies) Microsoft wanted to sue google for anti-trust.
Google, give 'em hell!
* http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10082800-93.html [cnet.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When someone is kicking you in the shins, you kick right back. You don't ignore it and go about your daily business.
Microsoft is currently part of a massive PR and political campaign to damage google in the US.
At least google isn't sending packets of propaganda to politicians.
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
I would put forth, that putting "faith" in any company, is faith misplaced.
A company isn't a benevolent entity that cares about people and the general 'good'....not if they are for profit.
A company's ONLY allegiance is to the stockholders and the almighty dollar (substitute your country's currency here). Does it have to act in a negative way? No. But, having and losing faith in a faceless, non-human entity is just not something to do. I'd say that you should, in general not put faith into anyone or anything that is beholden to someone else for their current position....politicians included. They are out to get re-elected and unless you really matter in that equation...well, I think you see where I'm going.
Unless someone is in a somehow powerful position, but, altruistic and not for profit, and independent...I'd not be putting my faith in anyone.
The only person looking out for YOUR best interests....is YOU.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That is most correct. First and foremost, Google sells ads. They are advertisers. You cannot trust advertisers... at least not completely. You have to find out facts for yourself if you ever want the truth in anything if it's even possible to get at truth.
The Google browser? No thanks! I don't trust advertisers. I'll stick with things that allow me to block ads and stuff like that. And yes, when surrounded by evils, sometimes you just have to choose the lesser of them.
Why? (Score:2)
1. What does Google have to do with it?
2. The browser wars are basically over (the monopoly stage, that is). Everyone and their dog has heard about firefox by now, and how good it is.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. What does Google have to do with it?
2. The browser wars are basically over (the monopoly stage, that is). Everyone and their dog has heard about firefox by now, and how good it is.
1. Google has developed a browser. 2. If the war is over and firefox has allegedly won, why does the large majority of internet users still use IE?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
2. If the war is over and firefox has allegedly won, why does the large majority of internet users still use IE?
Because it comes with the OS that's on that 'puter they bought a Wal-Mart.
Doesn't MS have, like, a 90% penetration in the market?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
You've answered the wrong question. That would fit the question "If Firefox is superior, why hasn't Firefox won the browser war?"
And that is exactly why this is still an issue, GGP's assertion that the browser war is over notwithstanding.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The government has explicitely put itself in the business of leveling competitive playing fields if said fields are found to be tilted by the use of a monopoly position that one player holds. If you don't like the law, lobby to change it; but don't expect a business (which exists for the express purpose of making money and could be sued by shareholders if it doesn't try to do so) not to pursue the legal remedies to which the government says they are entitled.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
90% of people use IE because 90% of people just want a basic browser and don't really care about things like [...]
Right and wrong. They use IE because that's what the computer ships with their computer, not because they want a basic browser. All the people I've helped set up a computer use Firefox or Opera because that's what I set up for them.
People don't care about extensions and security (until they need to wipe their system because of infections), but they don't actually care about their browser being basic or not. The important part is that since they don't care they use whatever ships with their system, mostly
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. What does Google have to do with it?
They market their own browser?
2. The browser wars are basically over (the monopoly stage, that is). Everyone and their dog has heard about firefox by now, and how good it is.
Then why is IE still by far the most used browser?
Exactly, because it's bundled and because a lot of people wouldn't know how to get on the net without it unless they're offered a 1-click option.
If it was up to me I'd still insist on unbundling of IE.
It is sufficiently documented when IE suddenly, and for MS conveniently, became 'part of the OS', no doubt to take away traction from the then running court case.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does it have to be a forced choice? and what's wrong with a forced choice?
When you buy a new car, you have all sorts of "forced choices" you can make, 2 door, 4 door, I4, V6, V8, Petrol, Diesel, manual/automatic transmission, heated seats, 16, 17, 18, 19 inch rims, undercoating, paint color, warranty based on miles, warranty based on years, etc... even after you buy the car you have choices to make, insurance, premium/supreme/various octanes gases, what tires to buy when the stock ones wear out...
Or, you don't, you can by a preset configuration, use whatever gas you happen to stop next to, leave it up to the "default" or mechanics decision on new tires, and what anti-freeze to use...
If you buy a new PC, you have similar choices, processor (engine), HD space (seats), videocards (headlights), color, normal/slim form factor, etc, and most online purchases have a plethora of other options, like 4 different printers, 3 mice, external HD/mem sticks, etc...
I hear more people complain about a lack of options when buying a car then too many options, as far as "confuse non-technical people" goes, that's up to the dealer/website descriptions of benifits/drawbacks...
Should OEMs be forced to provide choices? No, but it will usually if not always help their business, just like a Porsche (only) dealer, probably makes less money than than a Dodge + Jeep + Chrysler dealer will... just like AlienWare Vs Dell, or HP, etc...
As for DAC/ADC most people would only look at them like they are crazy if the retailer just said "so, do you want DAC, or ADC?" and when the customer asks "whats the benefits?" their only response is "DAC or ADC???"... if the retailer explains the advantages/disadvantages, almost anyone would be able to pick, those who don't care, will just ask "well what do you think?" retailer (usually) sells them the most expensive one...done...
The customer should have choices, it benefits both the customer (oooh specialized) and the retailer (more units sold), but those choices don't have to be every option every known to the product, usually just the "expected" options, and right now, people don't expect a Web Browser option, and that's what needs to change.
As far as the retailer is concerned, I don't think they really care about browsers, it wont change their per-unit costs, but it will (most likely) attract more customers, and as a psychological effect, once you provided choices, people tend to want to make more choices.
But i'm just babbling now...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They market their own browser?
Yeah, for the last what, three months? How long has the case been going on?
MS was informed the case was going to be prosecuted against them two months ago.
Would you even consider installing an OS that doesn't even have a browser?
Sure, I'd just install a browser after the OS.
Nevermind the fact that home Windows installs depend heavily on being able to download drivers for everything.
Drivers usually ship on the hardware, pre-installed and on disk, just as a browser likely would ship pre-installed by the hardware maker.
The computing landscape has changed significantly since the case started.
Two months ago? Maybe you're confusing this with the US case where the DoJ convicted them years ago, or maybe the EU's previous case for other antitrust abuses?
Now the main issue is preinstalled Windows without offering preinstalled free alternatives, or even offering computers with no OS at all.
Coming up with a remedy that addresses all the issues will be difficult.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ok, the problem is, the ability to embed trident in applications is a service provided by windows.
Agreed. The solution is to make the service of providing an embedded HTML service to applications needs to be divorced from Trident and abstracted.
If trident has to be on the system...
It doesn't and shouldn't be.
...is there any reason to not have IE present as well, particularly when it makes life easier for users.
Yes. It removes the possibility of fair competition, stifling innovation and holding Web technologies back. It hurts all users in the long run because they are forced to use inferior technologies because developers are unable to implement better ones given the broken market.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of your responses to your first question are focused on the fact that Google is marketing their own browser. While that's true, I would go farther than that: Google's entire business relies on web browsers. If lots of people are using a web browser that doesn't function properly, then it's a big headache for Google. If one of the most powerful companies in tech is pushing people to use a browser that doesn't work properly, then I'm sure Google will take an interest.
And beyond that, Google has been
Re:Default search (Score:4, Insightful)
IE is the default browser, so MSN is the default search engine. Even though people go to Google automatically these days, I wouldn't be surprised if their new browser is just a cover story. If they work a deal with OEMs, they could have the default browser be Chrome, with the default search engine being Google. Or even if the OEM wants Firefox, Google could still be the default search engine via their past investments and agreements with Mozilla.
Getting IE off windows, or at least not as prominently featured, is probably seen as a key strategy in the fight for search/ad market.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You make quite a few assumptions in your last statement. There are still MANY consumers here who just use IE because it came with the computer and it works well enough, AND have never heard that there are alternatives, let alone what firefox is.
As to your first comment, people have pointed out the competition angle, but consider also that when you connect to some site, your browser type is transmitted. Being the dominant search engine on the web, Google is in an excellent position to present statistical usa
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Everyone and their dog has heard about firefox by now, and how good it is.
"Firefly? No, never heard of that browser. I'm not even sure what a "browser" is. I just click the picture that says "verizon" on my computer and it works. BTW can someone tell me how to lookup Recovery Gov? I tried typing it but it gave me a error." - typical computer user
News at 11 (Score:2)
Better Link (Score:5, Informative)
The choice (Score:5, Funny)
offer an installation screen that gives consumers a choice of which browser to install.
Will the masses still opt for IE?
What if the IE choice says "Choosing IE will give you a substandard browsing experience, plus your computer will be pwned by malware. Oh and also you are holding back the progress of all mankind you douche"
Bets please.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
No, that isn't what I meant. What I said was what I meant.
More and more site developers are coding to standards rather than browsers. That means IE gets the degraded shitty experience, whilst any standards compliant browser gets something approximating what the developer intended.
That's the way it should be. Fanboism is irrelevant, people should have the choice of compliant browsers, and IE should fuck off and die.
Re: (Score:2)
People should have the choice, period. Killing off IE (because it's "not compliant") is different from it dying off becuase it's not compliant.
Incidentally, doesn't "IE needs to leave because it is not compliant" sound ominous? "You are not in compliance. Your software must die." To me, that sounds very, very tightly controlled. By an administration. And of course, when bodies of law-makers control those sorts of things, everything is much better, because law-makers are inherently fair, understanding,
Re: (Score:2)
> That means IE gets the degraded shitty experience
> whilst any standards compliant browser gets something approximating what the developer intended.
What are you talking about? IE8 is just as standards compliant as any other browser. It passes most of the significant web rendering tests (including Acid2).
IE8 is so much better than IE7 that I fear that once it is released, there will be a big slowdown in the number of users that actively seek out alternative browsers such as Firefox and Chrome.
Don't ge
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but the only website I've ever had problems with in IE was .... Slashdot.
This? [acidtests.org] Now try it with ~any browser other than IE.
For the lazy (source [wikipedia.org]):
~Any up-to-date-but-still-stable browser renders it correctly (read: the page doesn't look munged), except for IE, chrome, safari, and other webkit-based browsers. ~Any RC/alpha/etc gets a score upwards of 80, except for IE.
Re:The choice (Score:4, Interesting)
You sure use the word fanboi a lot for someone who systematically goes down a list browsers, humorously lashing out at all but one of them.
Unfair (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unfair (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the iPhone or Android market dominant? Are Apple or Google able to impose their de-facto standards on anyone else?
Re: (Score:2)
Google is dominant. iPhone is pretty dominant. Or they wouldn't talk about an "iPhone killer." Google seems able to impose standards on many other people. Incidentally, I don't see MS imposing many standards. They are trying, perhaps, sure. But w3c seems to be doing pretty well. Especially with web browsing standards. Why not let IE either die or improve naturally, as already is happening?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Until that happens would you like some cheese with your whine ?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure if that ever happens many Slashdotters will find some excuse why it's unfair to Apple.
In any case, the EU could force Apple to unbundle QT and Safari if it wanted to without any finding of Apple leveraging an illegal monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
There must be dozens of makes and hundreds of types of phones on the market with several different operating systems.
But every time I go shopping for a PC I find they all come with Windows, unless you build one yourself there isn't any choice.
Because (Score:2)
phones aren't computers perhaps?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the EU does this, then will they also force Apple to open the iPhone to other browsers? Will they force Google to allow other browsers to be shipped with android? Ok, these are not desktop platforms, but the same should apply.
The same laws do apply, you just don't seem to have a clue what they are. You first clue should be the word "antitrust". Find out what a "trust" is and you'll be most of the way to understanding why MS's action violates an antitrust law while Neither Apple nor Google's bundling of a browser does.
Re: (Score:2)
No. These are different thing, it's like comparing..well you know where that goes.
Apple is providing the complet experience, MS does not.
If MS built computers along with putting the code that runs them, then that would be fine.
This is not the case.
Using this as a reason to open up any software on the device, is like demanding that the company that makes your TV must allow different software to replace the firmware.
Re: (Score:2)
If the EU does this, then will they also force Apple to open the iPhone to other browsers?
I hope so. I generally don't have problem with laws that give consumers more choice. In fact, I hope that sooner or later Apple gives up on this notion of controlling all application distribution for the iPhone.
But even if they don't address those issues, two wrongs don't make a right. I have no objection to Microsoft being forced to support removal of IE and bundling of other browsers.
"But how will I get firefox if IE is not bundled?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, there are a lot of ways to do that:
1.You can use FTP.
2.You can download Firefox installer on another PC and then transfer it using floppies, USB flash memory or some other sneakernet technology.
3.You can include the Firefox installer to your Windows install CD.
4.Microsoft may make a program that lets you choose between IE, Firefox, Opera and Chrome.
Anyway, how do you install network card drivers after installing Windows if your network card is not supported by the default Windows install?
"But Joe Sixpack will not know how to accomplish options #1-#3 and MS may not make option #4 available to him"
Well, there is a high probability that Joe also does not know how to install Windows. So he has two options:
1. Ask a friend to install Windows for him
2. Buy a PC with Windows already installed by an OEM.
In case of #1, the friend will also be able to install Firefox, in case of #2. the OEM will have installed a browser for him.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Ask a friend to install Windows for him
2. Buy a PC with Windows already installed by an OEM.
In case of #1, the friend will also be able to install Firefox, in case of #2. the OEM will have installed a browser for him.
And, the OEM will likely install IE. Joe Sixpack will have no idea that there are other options out there, and continue to use what he's given.
I have tried to get my wife to use something (anything) other than IE, but she won't. She knows how to use Windows (in a limited way) can get her email and the few websites she is interested in. She also uses Word to do her report cards 3 times a year - and she happy with that. I think she represents the vast majority of computer users out there who aren't intere
Re:"But how will I get firefox if IE is not bundle (Score:2)
4.Microsoft may make a program that lets you choose between IE, Firefox, Opera and Chrome.
Yeah, it really doesn't seem this hard to me. Microsoft could write a simple application that would present you with a choice of browsers and download the proper browser from that browser's website. I'm sure Google and Mozilla would be willing to provide Microsoft with a static link that would always point to the most recent version of the browser. If you're worried about security, they can even use signatures from the SSL certs to verify that the download was good.
The amount of resources it would take
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1.You can use FTP.
2.You can download Firefox installer on another PC and then transfer it using floppies, USB flash memory or some other sneakernet technology.
For vast majority of users today, this is an unacceptable inconvenience.
3.You can include the Firefox installer to your Windows install CD.
4.Microsoft may make a program that lets you choose between IE, Firefox, Opera and Chrome.
These two are even worse. Who decides which browsers get to be bundled on Windows install CD and which aren't? Who decides which browsers go on the list of browsers available to install?
Every ISV and user should be involved! (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft and its monopoly has materially harmed the industry and consumers for so long, it has to stop.
For everyone that argues that Microsoft innovates or has created the computer market in the first place, I submit that you either don't know the history of the personal computer or choose to ignore it.
Thin client computers were killed by Microsoft. The "Are you my friend or are you Larry's" asked Bill Gates, and poof the DEC Shark was dead and so, eventually was DEC.
"Go" computers got killed when Toshiba
Re: (Score:2)
I must be imagining the Dells and all the netbooks that come with Linux....
Yea, well, when I see Linux or some other general purpose non-microsoft OS, in the retail outlets on name-brand systems, I'll reconsider my views.
20-30% marketshare for FireFox (Score:2)
...that alone proves to me Windows coming with IE by default doesn't elbow any other browser off the desktop.
I don't even use IE myself for most sites, but this seems rather like the competition seeing a chance to bash Microsoft and taking full advantage.
Hang on! You can't have it both ways! (Score:2)
This slashdot story has Google saying; "This is because Internet Explorer is tied to Microsoft's dominant computer operating system, giving it an unfair advantage over other browsers."
While this slashdot story about Chrome on the same front page; http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/26/1323211 [slashdot.org] , has them saying; "The web is becoming an integral part of the computer and the basic distinction between the OS and the browser doesn't matter very much any more" and "I think since the download is just one
Microsoft's Browser is so successful (Score:3, Insightful)
it is losing market share month by month. And browsers which didn't exist 2 years ago are gaining.
So the barrier to entry in the browser market must not be so compelling as to prevent another entrant. Nor is the barrier to success.
And customers/consumers have (and had) multiple choices and are taking advantage of them.
So why the case?
Re:Macs come only with Safari (Score:5, Insightful)
And many linux desktops only come with Firefox or Konqueror, and many mobile platforms only come with Opera, and many consoles only come with their own half-baked browsers, unless you go out of your way to find an alternative. That's not the issue. The issue is that IE is bundled with a monopoly product, non-standard, has related development tools that encourage writing for just it, and the end result is that a monopoly is, by default, becoming more of a monopoly, when the intent is that, instead, competition and progress should be encouraged.
Re: (Score:2)
...and Galeon, and Dillo, and lynx, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
and if anyone wants proof that the monopolistic way is a bad thing, if it wasn't for the competition from Firefox, we'd all still be using IE6.
Now we just need to see the same level of competition within the Windows monopoly for all other computing features and applications.
Re: (Score:2)
You can delete Safari from Mac OS X. It's easy, you just drag the application to the trash and then empty the trash. It doesn't "come back" later like with Windows. A lot of the libraries that Safari uses are used by the operating system, but those are system libraries and are used by other things as well (e.g., quicktime), and the application itself is removable. THAT is the problem wit
Re: (Score:2)
Macs come only with Safari...should there be a required option for Mac OS X too?
Not unless they become a monopoly and use that monopoly illegally, in which case the answer will be yes.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Groan, you complete miss the point. IE is not a neutral browser, it encourages sites to be broken and IE only. If it was standards compliant and was a simple drop-in replacement for FF, Opera etc, no one would really care, technically or politically. But when you abuse your monopolist position to repeated cause breakage with those not using your products, sooner or later you are going to face situations like this. MS know this and will continue to act like this. Their position is reinforced every time they
Re: (Score:2)
Re:*sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't break
They do do this sort of thing with IE.
I agree the solution of bundling different browsers doesn't make much sense. I think that a much better approach would be promoting standards compliant web pages and browsers.
I'd like to see the EU and the US Feds requiring it for anything that gets any government funding.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, what we need are more products that have nothing to do with each other and that don't work well together! And what's with Linux developers working on multiple projects? Not good!!
Allow me to ask ... why can't a SOFTWARE company produce SOFTWARE that goes well with other SOFTWARE that it has produced? Just because a lot of people use it? Eh. I don't know if popularity should have that kind of downside :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because that company has repeatedly violated the law in order to achieve and maintain their market dominance. Crime always has that kind of downside.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't even about the consumer. This is just a political/corporate game.
Yeah, I'm sure enforcing the same laws they enforce against everyone else must seem like a political game if you live in a country where MS gives huge amounts of money to politicians and those same politicians make sure laws aren't enforced against MS.
And frankly, letting the EU play it (and Google, now) simply because *we* don't like IE is ridiculous.
Speak for yourself. Some of us actually understand antitrust law and the damage MS's illegal actions have done to all of us and would like to see the advantages of a free market apply again. Why do you hate the free market? Are you a commie or something :)
Next thing we know, they'll have to start bundling Notepad++, too, because Notepad has the market cornered ;)
Soun
Re: (Score:2)
Hello, the below sounds really harsh. :( but isn't meant to be. I'm just typing quickly.
The same laws enforced on everyone else? Hmmmmm. Name one? Preferably a software company, please.
I like the free market. Which implies the EU not getting involved in it... or the US, or whoever else.
Hehe, fixing notepad would be good... wait, no it wouldn't, because then there'd be another monopoly there. As it is, I'm forced to download a competitor. Bad notepad == good for competitor business. Why do you want
Re:*sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
The same laws enforced on everyone else? Hmmmmm. Name one? Preferably a software company, please.
Here's a lisiting [europa.eu] of hundreds of them. If you want a software case, look at Telfonica last year. It was a major one tying software and services.
I like the free market. Which implies the EU not getting involved in it... or the US, or whoever else.
Monopolies make it possible to easily undermine the free market. That's why it is illegal for trusts to take actions that will undermine the operation of the free market. Anarchy is not a free market as simpletons who have never picked up an economics text would assert.
Hehe, fixing notepad would be good... wait, no it wouldn't, because then there'd be another monopoly there. As it is, I'm forced to download a competitor. Bad notepad == good for competitor business. Why do you want them to fix it? :)
How is OEMs installing a variety of text editors and users realizing they have choices worse for competition than everyone being given one inferior one and people who can't stand it looking for more options? If you made a text editor would you seriously like to have no chance of licensing it to OEMs because MS already includes one and forces OEMs to pay their dev fees?
OEM installs other browsers... well, they can do that now, if they want to, can't they?
Sure, but MS has undermined the market in such a way that it is no longer in their best financial interest to include the best browser because all browsers other than IE are artificially broken. Antitrust abuse isn't about holding a gun to people's heads and forcing them to take an action. We already have other laws against that. It is about abusing a monopoly to make the best choice one that is detrimental to society and end users and no longer fosters innovation and efficiency.
"No, because then Microsoft won't let them use Windows."
Nice strawman,
Great, then maybe they'll start using Linux.
Maybe you're not understanding monopoly influence.
Unless Linux isn't as good as we like to think it is, and people actually can't use it as well?
Linux is not usable by the average person partly because companies are not motivated to make it so because the market is undermined and innovation is slowed and partly because it is artificially broken by MS's dominance and illegal actions... but all that is beside the point. This is about the browser market being broken by an illegal action, not the OS market.
. Regardless, if THAT was the lawsuit
Please educate yourself or RTFA. There is no lawsuit here. This is a criminal court case, not a civil suit.
All of them that want to be included? Great, my computer will now ship with 50 browsers. :)
Could be, but maybe you might want to wait until a remedy is actually proposed before critiquing it. What's the point in your complaining about guesses as to what you think the EU might propose?
End users deserve better and can have better if we restore the free market ... by what?
Enforcing the law we've been enforcing for a hundred years.
By telling Microsoft, by court-ordering/government-mandating them to shape up and produce better products or leave?
Please give up the strawman arguments already.
By forcing Microsoft to compete on even ground with every other browser developer so the best product can gain share in a free market. I really don't see why you are so opposed to MS having to compete with others fairly. If their browser is the best it will win. If it isn't it will lose. How can you object to that?
Maybe bad MS products
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T was a monopoly that was an order of magnitude greater than any MS had. They owned the phones (customers rented them), all the infrastructure and all local and long distance service.
For MS to be like AT&T they'd have to make and control all hardware from mainframes to PCs, all OSs and all application software.
Hyperbolic bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
And now we will have a ton of posts that either bash or IE or stick up for IE. This isn't about IE and its merits
That my friend, is correct.
The EU doesn't care about that, do they? This isn't even about the consumer.
This, my friend, is 10000% incorrect. Anti-trust is exactly about the consumer. For capitalism to work, competition must be preserved and consumers must have choice. MS is a convicted monopolist, and MS has been proven that it exercises it's OS market share to intimidate PC makers to only bundle IE, and because it gives away IE for free, it under cut Netscape who, at the time was switching to a pay model for it's web browser.
This is just a political/corporate game.
That's true, at least for Google and Microsoft, but don't try to lump the EU into that same category. I'm not saying any government, even the EU, is perfect, but I'm sick and tired of people who don't understand trust law not realizing that prosecuting a monopoly is a Good Thing.
And frankly, letting the EU play it (and Google, now) simply because *we* don't like IE is ridiculous. Next thing we know, they'll have to start bundling Notepad++, too, because Notepad has the market cornered ;)
Obviously a troll, but I'll bite. First, you say this has nothing to do with the quality of IE, which is absolutely true, so the first part of this sentence is invalidated by that. It's not about if we don't like it, it's about if Microsoft is abusing it's monopoly power. Remember, although the penalty phase was messed up, in the US, Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Second, your comment about notepad shows again you don't understand monopolies. The monopoly here is in the OS market with windows, and the abuses are using their OS dominance to gain dominance in another market, the web browsing market, which, despite Firefox, they still have a dominant share in. Besides... who's to say microsoft's licensing language doesn't prevent OEMs from installing notepad++? Notepad isn't a powerplayer here, but if the maker of notepad++ and dell wanted to enter into an agreement, and Microsoft said "if you do that I will jack up your licensing fees" then that's abuse of monopoly power. Dell has no choice, and that's a bad thing. That translates into no choice for the consumer.
Besides, so let's say they don't bundle IE... or say they have to bundle a competitor. Which competitor? Firefox? Why not K-Meleon? Safari? Opera? Seamonkey? And hey, what about all those other calculators out there? And what about bundling openoffice.org instead of an Office trial version? And what about ...
All very valid points, and I simply reply by saying "yeah that's a good idea, why not?" For the browser at least, since it's essentially required software, install a bunch of different ones, and allow OEMs to create a program which says "hey, which browser do you want to try?" Or, allow OEMs to chose a browser other than IE. But there are other solutions as well. We don't have to worry about the specific solution here because the article makes no mention of a solution, so you just pulled that out of your ass. They haven't gotten to that stage yet.
See, in the old days, MS said to OEMs "You will bundle ONLY IE with windows or we will charge you outrageous licensing fees!" And it worked. IBM said no, and they found out they weren't the 800 lb gorilla any more and had to pay through the nose. Dell complied and they got some of the best prices. However, consumers complain to Dell, and want choice from Dell. Dell's hands are tied, and consumers suffer. Dell has no way to improve the experience for customers and evolve because Dell is bound by Microsoft who demands this. Dell I'm sure would like to offer another browser. Let Dell chose, and thus the consumer judge Dell it on it's own merits. Choice is stifled here, therefore the consumer loses. Microsoft may still be doing this to a degree, despite being a convicted monopolist, and the EU
Re: (Score:2)
"Anti-trust is exactly about the consumer."
In the same sense that government is exactly about helping people. Unfortunately, in both cases, the theory and practice are not the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but to the extent that they don't work correctly, they undermine the ability for our society to function properly.
BTW, I don't think capitalism is fundamentally about freedom in a broad sense.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a good res[ponce the the problems.
You just don't bundle any full browser at all.
Or you bundle the top 5 available browsers.
IE, Firefox, Opera, Chrome and safari.
Office trial version is part of the default install. It's an add on by PC builders.
Re: (Score:2)
And frankly, letting the EU play it (and Google, now) simply because *we* don't like IE is ridiculous. Next thing we know, they'll have to start bundling Notepad++, too, because Notepad has the market cornered ;)
That may seem like a sensible argument, but it doesn't hold up. The web browser has a much bigger and more direct impact on communications and commerce than something like Notepad. Also, Microsoft has never been accused of specifically targeting Notepad competitors and running them out of business by leveraging their OS monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
"The web browser has a much bigger and more direct impact on communications and commerce than something like Notepad."
Well, I don't think an individual browser has all that much impact on communications and commerce. I'm not aware of any major browser that prevents people from freely expressing their opinion or keeps them from doing business on the web.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another person who doesn't understand why we regulate monopolies.
Indeed. If we calculated the amount of man hours lost due to abysmal web standard support by IE6 due to their practical monopoly of the browser market there is more than enough evidence to see how much damage this has caused. Just my personal acumulation must amount to thousands of dollars worth of lost time...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that argument goes both ways. If there were no competitors to IE you wouldn't have to spend all those man hours getting to work on other browsers.
Re: (Score:2)
So much for that. Getting involved in the legal process to stab a competitor is far from evil (even if the target is evil themselves). How long until the EU starts an anti-trust case against Google and MS returns the favor?
Being remarkably less evil will help mitigate the potential harm of this.
Google has a lot less to lose from monopoly scrutiny.
Re: (Score:2)
We have to end the monopoly of wget included with windows! It's a damned near monopoly!
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, because there's no legitimate antitrust implications of merging the #1 and #2 companies in a market.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it.
No you don't. Why don't you look up what antitrust law is and gain an understanding?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are a real cut up. You can't argue based on your own thinking so just constantly appeal to authority.
Asking people to know the basics of what the hell they're talking about isn't an appeal to authority. The previous person asked a question clearly demonstrating they don't even know the definition of "antitrust" while discussing enforcement of an antitrust law.
Anytime I see your asinine posts I know exactly what I'm in for.
Every time I see your posts I know what I'm in for too, ad hominem attacks, and arguments from someone who made up their mind long before they had any clue what they were talking about and who refuses to find out because it might make them change thei
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it. Microsoft makes a web browser and bundles it with their operating system. Big deal! Apple does the same thing with Safari.
That isn't the issue. Microsoft are treated differently because they have a monopoly and they allegedly leverage it to gain further control.
It would only be the same thing if Apple were in Microsoft's position, a monopoly. In that case they would be under the same scrutiny, but they're not so they aren't. Likewise, if Microsoft were in Apple's position they wouldn't be facing this right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Except Apple makes the whole device.
That is the critical difference.
If Apple opened up their OS to run on any PC they would be subject to the same thing one there market share got to a certain size.
The market has NOT been working this out, MS keeps taking steps to make sure people have to use IE.
There system updates needs it, and they integrate it into the OS. From a modern kernel development stand point, there is no reason at all to do that, and it is poor design. SO either MS doesn't to make IE mandatory,
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it. Microsoft makes a web browser and bundles it with their operating system. Big deal! Apple does the same thing with Safari.
Apple didn't get caught trying to run Safari competitors out of the market. Apple didn't successful run Safari competitors out and then promptly decide to cease development on Safari. Apple hasn't specifically avoided implementing web standards for the purpose of creating vendor lock-in. Apple isn't trying to leverage an OS monopoly to gain a browser monopoly so that they can use the browser monopoly to gain a search-engine monopoly.
They may be late to the game, but since Microsoft hasn't quit playing t
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
But you can't UNINSTALL the browser! Microsoft entwines it so much with the OS that it's ALWAYS THERE. It removes your choice and unfairly stifles competition!
Bullshit! People have to be getting this from somewhere if I just scrolled through pages of the same comment, but it's not true.
Because IE is included with the operating system, lots of first- and third-party programs use it for rendering web pages. It exports a nice COM interface and has .NET components. (In fact, you can make a "tabbed browser" in 3 clicks in C#.)
Removing IE doesn't break Windows - it breaks other programs. Any kind of F1 compiled help will die. Steam would die. Creative's "Update" application would die. So on and so forth.
So, the uninstaller just removes the icon. But, there's nothing stopping you from deleting c:\program files\Internet Explorer. For those of you following along on Vista, also try c:\program files (x86)\Internet Explorer.
Now, if the Mozilla devs would also export a nice, shiny COM interface or a .NET assembly, all of this would be moot. They could even make a redistributable version of Firefox so interested parties could include it with their installer.
Until that day, the alternative to assuming IE exists on every machine is every program even remotely related to the internets writing their own browser.
Re: (Score:2)
But you can't UNINSTALL the browser! Microsoft entwines it so much with the OS that it's ALWAYS THERE. It removes your choice and unfairly stifles competition!
I think grand-parent poster was being sarcastic if you look at this phrase compared to the tone of the rest of his post...
Re: (Score:2)
But, you can change the radio in your Ford.
You can't removed MSIE
I don't disagree that it's useful to have a browser available when I work on a freshly installed machine. MSIE is available, so I can download Firefox. But, it would be nice to be able to uninstall MSIE afterward.
For Linux, yes we have a browser. Well, many browsers [flickr.com]. When I installed the workstation I'm on right now, I did an "everything" install. That came with Epiphany, Konqueror, Firefox,