backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 55 comment(s) - last by callmeroy.. on May 5 at 1:19 PM

Microsoft hopes that it will come out on top in a special oral hearing with the European Commission over antitrust charges.  (Source: Gizmodo)
Microsoft seeks some special "alone time" with the EU and industry leaders, over antitrust allegations

After fining Microsoft over $2B USD for antitrust violations, the European Union's European Commission (the EU's body that regulates business), is going after its favorite target yet again.   The EU is calling Microsoft's practice of bundling Internet Explorer with Windows "anticompetitive" and is hoping to reach a deal for Microsoft to package Firefox, Chrome, Opera, or other competitors with Windows retail copies.

Microsoft, of course, balks at such demands and is actively fighting them.  It has requested a special oral hearing with the EC in order to plead its case.  The motion is similar to that filed by Intel and subsequently denied by the EC a few months ago, in Intel's own antitrust proceedings.  The request was contained in Microsoft's formal written response to the January charges.

Commission spokesman Jonathan Todd indicated that the EC, will however, grant Microsoft's request.  He says no date has been set, though.  He says the hearing will invite third parties to participate as well -- among those that may be attending are Mozilla, maker of the Firefox browser; Google; as well as IBM, Oracle, Red Hat and other software firms represented by the trade group the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS).

While all of those parties will likely voice support to the charges, another group likely attending will be Association for Competitive Technology (ACT), a trade group representing small and medium-size IT firms, eager to give Microsoft a hand.

Meanwhile the EC is mulling over the written response.  States Mr. Todd, "We are studying Microsoft's response carefully."

The EU has already learned its lesson about simply telling Microsoft to offer a copy without the offending bundled software -- it did that for Windows Media Player in 2004.  Unsurprisingly, nearly everyone bought the copy with WMP on it, and the ruling was considered ultimately useless.  However, some analysts warn that a harsher ruling could be more dangerous. 

Particularly controversial is the considered option for PC makers to determine which alternative browsers to bundle.  States one source, "If this happened Google would be in a position to buy its way into Windows. There is no one else who could come close to its purchasing power.  This would be great news for OEMs, but it would do little to restore fair competition to the market.  If the Commission isn't careful it could replace a harmful monopoly in the browser market with an equally harmful duopoly involving Google's Chrome and Microsoft's IE."

For now, Microsoft must wait for the hearing and its results.  After the hearing, the EC will formulate its final ruling.  During this process, it will consult with other branches within the commission, as well as national competition regulators.  If it rules against Microsoft, the company will have an opportunity to appeal.  However, such appeals of the EC's antitrust decisions in the past by Microsoft and others have proved costly and fruitless.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Geez
By Spivonious on 4/30/2009 1:26:44 PM , Rating: 2
Another instance of the EU wasting time and money.




RE: Geez
By FITCamaro on 4/30/2009 1:49:40 PM , Rating: 4
Yes but in an effort to steal even more money.

If you don't like the fact that Windows comes with Internet Explorer, either install a new web browser or DON'T BUY WINDOWS!

If the EU was suing Apple at the same time for this kind of thing, I'd be a lot less critical.


RE: Geez
By Spivonious on 4/30/2009 4:36:11 PM , Rating: 2
But if Windows didn't come with a web browser, how would you install a different one??? Forcing MS to packing competing browsers with Windows is just idiotic, and perhaps the most anti-free market decision since Obama took over GM and Chrysler.


RE: Geez
By FITCamaro on 4/30/2009 4:49:53 PM , Rating: 1
Kinda my point.


RE: Geez
By erikejw on 5/2/2009 3:44:56 PM , Rating: 2
"EU to Give Microsoft an Oral "

I thought it was the other way around,
and then I read the second part of the headline ;)


RE: Geez
By BZDTemp on 4/30/2009 5:39:42 PM , Rating: 4
LOL - how do you think the browser was installed in the old days when it was a separate product?

You simply got the browser in a box just another piece of software. This works to day also and in fact you can get Windows that way if you do not buy it preloaded.

If you go for preloaded the choice of browsers can be preloaded just like most systems comes with time limited anti-virus software, an office package and so on.

Also there are other ways of distributing electronically that through a browser. There is FTP for one and having a small app. work as menu hiding FTP for none-technical people could be a simple approach.

Making Microsoft offer IE alternatives is a great thing. It means more choice for users which again means more competition and more competition equals even more choice and faster tech development. Anyone wins but Microsoft.

People here need to stop seeing this as an attack on the US. Look at the companies which have complained to the EU about Microsoft - apart from Opera they are all from the US.


RE: Geez
By freaqie on 5/1/2009 6:57:07 AM , Rating: 2
why not just put all browsers on the install disk.
it's not going to be hard.
the user can choose which one to install.
and the user would not have to get a special disk or install it after the installation of windows is complete.

only microsoft would probably hide it somewhere in the advanced options (I wouldn't nescesarily mind. but the EU would)

just make a fancy menu with the options (highlited from most to last used ( then they can stil have IE up front)
and let me pick.


RE: Geez
By Kenenniah on 5/1/2009 9:43:39 AM , Rating: 5
Why not force Microsoft to include competing products for Windows Media Player, Remote Desktop, MS Paint, Notepad, Wordpad, Windows Explorer, Calculator, and so on? I mean there are alternatives out there for just about any tool that's included with Windows. I know, they should even start including copies of all the linux distros on the disc too!

Come on people, don't you see what's wrong with forcing a company to include its competitors products with it's own? Since when is it a good thing for governments to dictate to companies what they can or can't include in their own products? Monopolistic products and companies do of course need some oversight. If Microsoft made it so it wasn't possible to install other browsers etc, then I would understand the concern but this isn't the case.

It doesn't matter whether you like MS or not, this isn't just a Microsoft issue. What kind of precedent does this kind of thinking create? Imagine any other company of your choosing being told it's wrong not to include competing products with your own. Or that it's wrong to include your own free products in a package with a larger product. Imagine yourselves in that place. For some of you I'm sure it's easy to be on the side of the EU because MS is "evil", but how would you feel if was your own company?


RE: Geez
By BZDTemp on 5/2/2009 6:55:29 PM , Rating: 3
I'd like to say that if Microsoft was my company I would have done things differently. And by differently I mean not using vaporware tactics, not trying to rig the process for the approval of the ooxml, not having IE follow closed standards and so on...

However as the saying goes power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts. In other words I would properly have been trying to take over the world just as Microsoft is doing now. Still that does not make it right.

Requiring a software company to include competitors products on it's OS distribution may seem to much but it is really no different from making phone companies carry competitors traffic, railroads allow other companies on their tracks and so on. If monopolies are not stopped they will take over everything. If Microsoft had not been forced to open up plus rethink their doing due to fear of prosecution I very doubt we would have even the choice we have today.


RE: Geez
By Kenenniah on 5/3/2009 4:10:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Requiring a software company to include competitors products on it's OS distribution may seem to much but it is really no different from making phone companies carry competitors traffic, railroads allow other companies on their tracks and so on.


No it's not the same thing. Your analogy would be more akin to Microsoft allowing other applications to run on their operating system, which of course Firefox does run perfectly fine on Windows. Microsoft at least in this case isn't stopping it from running on their product. Also, phone companies don't just let others use their lines for free, the other companies have to pay them for that use.

I'm definately not saying Microsoft hasn't done things I don't agree with. When they step over the line, yes the governments have every right to get involved. I just don't see that case in this particular situation.

For that matter, one of the competitors is Google's Chrome. Google is dominant in the Internet search market, so don't they have an unfair advantage over Mozilla as well? Should Google be forced to place links on their homepage to download IE, Mozilla, and whatever else for no advertising fees also?


RE: Geez
By reader1 on 4/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Geez
By themaster08 on 4/30/2009 8:10:48 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
When you buy a computer in the future, it will only have the OS, some system utilities and a software store for acquiring software. Users will simply try and buy the browser they want. It's an elegant and simple solution, invented by Apple, of course.

Yeah, it's just a pity they haven't implemented this idea into their own lock-in operating system.


RE: Geez
By Akrovah on 5/1/2009 10:34:12 AM , Rating: 2
Weren't X-Box Live Arcade, the Playstation Network, and the Wii Virtual Console all released before the App Store?

Unless Apple had someother software store that I am un aware of. (and iTunes does not count, it is a media store, not software)

Oh yes, and Valve's Steam?


RE: Geez
By Nekrik on 4/30/2009 6:40:20 PM , Rating: 1
If MS is forced to create a version of Windows without IE they should also remove the TCP stack, that would make this fun for everyone.

It seems to many that when it comes to tech the EU doesn't really know what it wants or what it needs. The infamous XP version M was mentioned in the article, I'm curious why the EU was not held accountable for this nightmare they caused. The EU should repay both the development costs and compensate for damages to other apps who lost engineering resources to make the 'M' version. As it is they make rediculous demands that cost companies millions of dollars and are never brought to justice themselves, that is pretty much an abuse of power.


RE: Geez
By BZDTemp on 4/30/2009 5:26:43 PM , Rating: 2
Here we go again.

Apple does not have a controlling share of the OS market and therefore what they do with their OS is not of such importance. Microsoft has used Windows to kill the internet browser market and it's only because other companies are spending money to fight back we still have choice.

Apple has control over the electronic music market so the EU are looking into that wanting Apple to open up iTunes/iPods. Is that also a bad thing?


RE: Geez
By Justin Time on 4/30/2009 8:09:54 PM , Rating: 3
Only illegal if you have more than x% of the market – is a stupid idea.

While some might try to argue MS uses it’s position to stifle competition and maintain IE market share, the reverse argument is that Apple and Google use the EU and/or DOJ misplaced protection to stifle competition and build their market share... and Opera just want a free ride from the EU.

The “you can’t touch us because we are not as big in O/S share as MS and therefore can do as we please” that Apple and Google try to run, is totally hypocritical, and should be slammed. Anyone who uses Google knows that they are abusing their position to build market share for Chrome, and yet they want to argue for protection against MS ?

Facts are that IE has only 66% of the browser market. This is NOT a result of EU/DOJ fines or pathetic “NO IE” version solutions, but a result of the market voting with its feet, and choosing to go elsewhere.

IE6 was bad news, IE7 not much better, IE8 better but lots to do... and the market knows a shiny turd when it sees it. Until MS get their act together and actually address the needs of the market, they will continue to lose customers, regardless of the EU and their obvious income-seeking actions.

MS appear to have learnt something from the Vista debacle, but still have their hands over their ears when it comes to IE, and the only difference the EU action will make is to the bank accounts of the EU lawyers.


RE: Geez
By Kenenniah on 5/1/2009 10:04:37 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Microsoft has used Windows to kill the internet browser market and it's only because other companies are spending money to fight back we still have choice.

Last I knew Firefox was gaining on IE which isn't exactly a symptom of a domintated and killed market. Why is the browser market different from everything else? Normally you create a product, advertise, and if people like it they'll use it. Yes, IE does have the advantage of being included with Windows but that's not really the problem. The problem is that the majority of people don't know anything about Firefox and the others, but it's not Microsoft's responsibility to advertise for other companies. If this market is so important, why isn't Mozilla advertising on TV? Ahh yes, it's easier and less expensive to complain to goverments and sue. Making someone else advertise or include your products for you is cheaper.


RE: Geez
By BZDTemp on 5/2/2009 7:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly what money would pay for Firefox advertising on TV? All the money the Mozilla people they get in revenue? LOL

As long as Microsoft is forcing people to pay for IE by making it part of their OS package that means there is no browser market since it's not really a market. Microsoft ran Netscape out of business, Opera is pretty much gone and Firefox is only here because IBM and a few other will not let Microsoft take over completely.


RE: Geez
By Kenenniah on 5/3/2009 4:21:36 AM , Rating: 4
If there wasn't any revenue, then just how is Microsoft hurting Mozilla? You can't take away revenue from another company by anti-competitive practices if there isn't any revenue to take away.

Of course Mozilla does have revenue, so that's a moot point. Just because they are non-profit and open source with free products doesn't mean they haev revenue. I'll make it easy for you, read their financial statements.
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/documents/mf-200...


RE: Geez
By Hare on 5/1/2009 8:56:06 AM , Rating: 1
You want cheese with that whine?

Ps. Google the definition of 'monopoly' and educate yourself why the EU is doing what it does. It's not like the US hasn't had issues with MS. The only thing is that since MS is a domestic player the US doesn't make as much noise.


RE: Geez
By Moishe on 5/1/2009 1:57:20 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The EU has already learned its lesson about simply telling Microsoft to offer a copy without the offending bundled software -- it did that for Windows Media Player in 2004. Unsurprisingly, nearly everyone bought the copy with WMP on it, and the ruling was considered ultimately useless.


This is THE quote for explaining what the purpose of these rulings are.

1. The EU requested something.
2. MS complied
3. MS was not harmed by the action.
4. Thus, the ruling was useless.

So we have to assume that the purpose of the ruling was to harm Microsoft.

We can only guess at the reasons, but because MS is "big business" it's easy to play the class warfare game to look good for constituents and also pocket some cash while they're at it. Doesn't hurt to take a US company down a notch too, since the EU is in direct competition for world power.


RE: Geez
By KamiXkaze on 5/1/2009 11:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
I agree what a waist of time, and money don't they know the landscape change since win 98.


That is perfect!
By Golgatha on 4/30/2009 12:44:05 PM , Rating: 5
The thumbs up from President Clinton is priceless considering the title of this news post.




RE: That is perfect!
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/30/2009 12:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
Glad you liked it!


RE: That is perfect!
By dice1111 on 4/30/2009 1:21:30 PM , Rating: 1
For a non-sexual spin, I would have also enjoyed something like this...

http://www.jzoo.com/java/scrollingimages/images/co...


RE: That is perfect!
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/30/2009 1:44:38 PM , Rating: 5
Nah, he got it right the first time.


RE: That is perfect!
By Moishe on 5/1/2009 1:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
It's a perfect picture for this kind of article :)


RE: That is perfect!
By FITCamaro on 4/30/2009 1:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
I think a picture of him smoking a cigar with a thumbs up would've been better. ;)


RE: That is perfect!
By bhieb on 4/30/2009 2:37:25 PM , Rating: 2
LOL my thoughts exactly, with all the bending over that MS has taken from EU least they could do is give em some oral.


RE: That is perfect!
By rudolphna on 4/30/2009 4:04:21 PM , Rating: 3
I saw it and lol'ed. That was a great choice for picture.


Bundling? Why the lawsuit?
By TheFace on 4/30/2009 1:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
The overlooking of Apple's bundling practices just points out the absolute absurdity of these allegations. If you had no bundled browser, how would you go get FF, Opera, or any others (is there a way?)? The first thing I do when I reformat is DL FF. Then I get anti-virus, anti-spyware up and running. The market has changed, consumers have moved to other browsers willingly, and there is little reason to punish microsoft for the bundling practices.

If someone wishes to tell me why they believe that this lawsuit warranted, please explain it to me in a way that I might understand. I am no dunce when it comes to these things, but I don't see the necessity of the suit when people have their choices.

My inflammatory and maybe misguided view is that this just seems to be the EU trying to get some Microsoft money. Tell me I'm wrong if you believe so, and why.




RE: Bundling? Why the lawsuit?
By MadMan007 on 4/30/2009 3:07:01 PM , Rating: 2
It's been said before in similar articles but there is FTP. Of course good luck expecting people to FTP the file to get on the intertubes.

I suppose there could be some kind of 'Internet setup' steps built in to OS account setup, or maybe include links to other browser homepages...lots of simple ideas here. But really the EU is too nutty with this stuff and is also behind the times. Last I read IE is continually losing market share.


RE: Bundling? Why the lawsuit?
By JoeBanana on 5/1/2009 3:40:29 AM , Rating: 2
No need to explain people to ftp file. Simply GUI the idea. Downloading and installing browser is two steps away. Of course this can be a very simple program, not like packet managers in linux.


RE: Bundling? Why the lawsuit?
By Akrovah on 5/1/2009 10:45:05 AM , Rating: 2
That is actually not a bad idea. While I think it would be ridiculous to require MS to advertise for thier competitors, the idea you state MS has already done, within IE itself. When you first install IE it gives you a list of possible search providers that you can install and set to default. Pull that same idea out into an app that would let the users choose which browser to install after OS setup is complete. It goes out to the web and downloads the needed file and installs.


I never fully understood this issue
By callmeroy on 5/5/2009 1:17:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not genius, nor do I ever claim to be in real life or online....but I do consider myself a reasonable and intelligent person. Before anyone says "do you know what monopoly means?" or any such reply, my answer beforehand is yes. I know what it means.

However, for the life of me it defies all logic that a software company can not offer a feature in their own product simply on the grounds that their are other companies out there trying to offer a similar product, but they only offer said product/feature as a standalone and not a full blown solution (in this case an OS) so therefore its unfair.

What confuses me even more is -- to my knowledge even at the dawn of the WWW browsers were free. Its not like Mozilla makes money from selling their browser, nor does Google, Opera, etc. So how is the case of loss revenues even applicable? Browsers don't generate ad sales.

Like another poster stated -- its ridiculous should MS have to include competing software with their Operating Systems. These days the internet is so integral to what we use our computers for -- it makes perfect sense to me that a modern OS would have integrated web browser-like UI's or abilities built into it. Again this further makes me scratch my head at why in this case Microsoft is so evil or wrong....

My bottom line thought is --- monopoly laws are outdated, lame, and too sissy-fied in the modern age we live in (but I guess that shouldn't surprise me since the whole of the US society is turning into a nation of sissies).... an simple example change I'd love to see is "it can't be a monopoly unless it matches x% of functionality as the competitors do"....in other words since MS product is a full blown OS with an included browser that shouldn't be considered as a monopoly against stand alone products...because the stand alone doesn't offer nearly the same function or features as a full OS does.

Bring me a SERIOUS case of monopoly abuse -- like oh I don't know.....Comcast perhaps?....then get back to me....




By callmeroy on 5/5/2009 1:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
ok maybe not so intelligent in proof reading for typos before I post.... :)


I never understood this
By MScrip on 4/30/2009 5:53:15 PM , Rating: 3
Yes... bundling IE with Windows makes a lot of people use it by default. But, it never prevented anyone from using another browser. In fact, you have to use IE to download another browser unless you know some nifty FTP command lines.

Mozilla, Opera and Google knew that IE was bundled with every installation of Windows, yet they continue to make their software and distribute it for free. Whether or not the EU can force IE off the desktop... Firefox will keep on trucking.

Speaking of Europe... isn't Firefox use in Europe continually gaining market share? And that's with IE still included in Windows!

I guess Firefox use would be higher if it was actually included in Windows... but is Mozilla behind these lawsuits or what? Why is the EU so insistent on getting other browsers on the desktop? What's in it for them?




Anticompetitive - Ridiculous!
By ICBM on 4/30/2009 1:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone who actually thinks bundling IE with Windows is off their rockers. As a previous poster stated, they are free to download whatever browser they choose.

An equivalent to this would be FORBIDDING car manufacturers not to include a radio with a car because it is "anticompetitive".

They only reason they are attacking Microsoft is because they have the market, and these politicians want to make themselves look tough on "monopolies."

Last time I checked, I never saw a computer locking out other operating systems. Heck, even on an old Apple you could install Linux.




By sapiens74 on 4/30/2009 1:56:54 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry lost my train of thought...




Looks like an opportunity
By wookie1 on 4/30/2009 2:20:55 PM , Rating: 2
"If the Commission isn't careful it could replace a harmful monopoly in the browser market with an equally harmful duopoly involving Google's Chrome and Microsoft's IE."

Why would the commission worry about this? This would open up more opportunities - wouldn't then Google be anticompetitively colluding to get bundled into Windows and lock others out? Then the EU can extract hefty fines from Google, and again from MS. The cash just keeps rolling in!




What
By kaoken on 4/30/2009 2:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
EU commission are a bunch of crooks. How's it anti-competitive when all these browsers are offered for free.




Stepping Over the Line
By tech329 on 5/1/2009 3:54:41 AM , Rating: 2
I happen to think this crosses over that fine line that governments should be cautious of broaching.

First off it is completely illogical not to have a browser as part of an operating system.

Secondly, it is also a problem for government to dictate that a company, even a Microsoft, ship the OS with a competitors browser. Where consumers can freely exercise to install their choice of browser the argument that Microsoft has an advantage doesn't hold up very well.

Thirdly , this seems to place Microsoft in a position of involuntarily and inappropriately being handed the responsibility for a lack of knowledge upon the part of consumers. If government thinks that consumers aren't knowledgeable of the idea that they can exercise a choice of browser I fail to see how that becomes a responsibility of Microsoft. As my handle indicates, I am a tech and I know very well consumers have no idea but that is a reflection of possessing (or not) knowledge that is readily available. Transferring responsibility for using a computer, especially at such a basic level, strikes me as backward. If, at install time, there is offered a choice of browser, people that are uninformed will be clueless to make an informed choice anyway. Any perceived benefit is thus negated in a way that has nothing at all to do with Microsoft.




Stepping Over the Line
By tech329 on 5/1/2009 4:07:03 AM , Rating: 2
I happen to think this crosses over that fine line that governments should be cautious of broaching.

First off it is completely illogical not to have a browser as part of an operating system.

Secondly, it is also a problem for government to dictate that a company, even a Microsoft, ship the OS with a competitors browser. Where consumers can freely exercise to install their choice of browser the argument that Microsoft has an advantage doesn't hold up very well.

Thirdly , this seems to place Microsoft in a position of involuntarily and inappropriately being handed the responsibility for a lack of knowledge upon the part of consumers. If government thinks that consumers aren't knowledgeable of the idea that they can exercise a choice of browser I fail to see how that becomes a responsibility of Microsoft. As my handle indicates, I am a tech and I know very well consumers have no idea but that is a reflection of possessing (or not) knowledge that is readily available. Transferring responsibility for using a computer, especially at such a basic level, strikes me as backward. If, at install time, there is offered a choice of browser, people that are uninformed will be clueless to make an informed choice anyway. Any perceived benefit is thus negated in a way that has nothing at all to do with Microsoft.

The final problem is MS would get creamed by the EC and in the court of public opinion with this line of reasoning. That is troublesome because it exposes an objective fact of the issue that would most certainly be illogically rejected even though it is an undeniable truth.




well
By meepstone on 5/3/2009 12:48:30 PM , Rating: 2
I got a question, do macs come with a choice or do you just get safari?

if apple does force you only on safari then whats the difference?




Nice!
By Dbtech on 5/3/2009 7:43:26 PM , Rating: 1
Oh shit how do I get in on this? Because I wrote a fucking sweet minesweeper game and these douche bags at Microsoft are preloading their version. It's not fair...People are to retarded to type minesweeper in their IE search box and find a better product.

Just between you and me I'm also secretly working on a revolutionary calculator program that can preform basic math functions. Or better yet maybe a desktop wallpaper, with pretty colors!

Were the hell does the madness end...




No IE
By Zingam on 5/1/09, Rating: -1
Microsoft = AIG
By reader1 on 4/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Microsoft = AIG
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/30/2009 1:07:28 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Microsoft is profiting from socially destructive activities just as AIG did. They won't stop until it blows up in their faces. This will happen soon. Sell your stock while you can.


What???

While I would say packaging your browser with your industry leading OS software is inherently a bit anticompetitive, but "socially destructive"?? That's a bit of an extreme judgement to say the least.

And I fail to see many comparisons between the successful and well managed Microsoft, which puts out polished products and the likes of AIG/the Big Three, which are close to a polar opposite.

Ultimately Microsoft is no more guilty than Apple when it comes to browser-bundling, but since it has the marketshare, it gets in trouble, while Apple's transgressions are overlooked.

I agree that maybe something needs to be done to promote competition, but the EC's kneejerk reaction (letting OEM's decide) may make the situation worse, damaging the chances of Firefox, Opera and others, as the source pointed out. Allowing a third party browser maker to buy its way into OEM's installations is hardly promoting "free competition" and seems like an invitation for trouble.


RE: Microsoft = AIG
By croc on 4/30/2009 7:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
Back in the XP / IE6 days, the EU had a point. IE6 was not just included, it was integrated into the OS. Not impossible to remove and replace, but it required much effort and new code to do so. Hence the EU only release of XP, mandated by the EU. No one bought it...

Now, with Vista and Win7, the browser is just another included application. Remove it if you want, easy-peasy. I would, but my bank only codes for IE...

OK, a lot of rambling, the point of which is what does the EU want from M$ if not just money? What does Opera want? Opera is my primary browser, already. Didn't cost me a thing. What does Mozilla want? FF has more bugs than any other browser out there, maybe they should make it more secure before trying to stuff it onto even more desktops. Google Chrome? Not a bad attempt, but still needs more work. IBM? Oracle? Do they even have a dog in this race?


RE: Microsoft = AIG
By PrezWeezy on 4/30/2009 8:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While I would say packaging your browser with your industry leading OS software is inherently a bit anticompetitive


Really? What do you think they should do, package all their competitors browsers? That's stupid. That's like telling Rolex they should include the choice for Timex hands and gears. My point not being about price/quality, just illustrating two name brands. Why the hell should they put anything other than their browser there? If it were me I'd release a version with no browser for Europe and tell them to write their reps. The EU is a bunch of politicians looking to get their name in the paper. Either that or they are really that stupid.

You can't force someone to add competitive products into their package. You can force them to not purposefully block the installation of copetitive products, but forcing their inclusion is itself far more anti-competition. It's beyond that, it is target favoring.


RE: Microsoft = AIG
By themaster08 on 4/30/2009 8:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The EU is a bunch of politicians looking to get their name in the paper

The EU are nothing more than a corrupt bunch of low-lives preying on whatever they can find a profit from. Unfortunately, Microsoft have fallen victim to their corruption.


RE: Microsoft = AIG
By themaster08 on 4/30/2009 8:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's a bit of an extreme judgement to say the least.

Anti-Microsoft extremists often come out with inadvertently extreme statements.

quote:
And I fail to see many comparisons between the successful and well managed Microsoft, which puts out polished products and the likes of AIG/the Big Three, which are close to a polar opposite.

This is probably due to the fact that reader1 here is in a polar opposite world to the rest of us.


RE: Microsoft = AIG
By Cheesetogo on 4/30/2009 1:08:41 PM , Rating: 4
I really fail to see how including IE or WMP with Windows is "socially destructive." People are free to download other programs - it's not as though you're forced to use them. Not to mention, I've never seen anything about Apple in any of these stories - but Apple bundles WAY more stuff than Windows with OSX.


RE: Microsoft = AIG
By Kefner on 4/30/2009 1:21:56 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't have said it better.


RE: Microsoft = AIG
By just4U on 5/1/2009 4:25:59 AM , Rating: 2
It's also used as a selling point, Ofcourse if Microsoft dared to try and bundle as much they'd have so many lawsuits thrown at them it wouldn't be funny.


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki