EU finds that Microsoft has failed to comply with its browser choice commit


Recommended Posts

There's no reason to tie IE in with the OS except for the fact that Microsoft wants to use its dominant desktop OS monopoly to maintain browser marketshare so it can push Bing, and its other online services. A clear cut case of antitrust.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard.

We should sue Google for using Chrome to push Google services (and then paying Apple and Firefox to do the same). Sounds like anti-trust to me.

It's Microsoft's OS. They SHOULD be able to do what they want with it. Just because it's popular shouldn't have any bearing on what stuff it comes with. I mean look at cars, Toyotas are popular should be force Toyota to allow buyers to choose Honda seats?

Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's a monopoly. Yes Microsoft 10-15 years ago were in trouble for monopolistic behavior, but nowadays they're far from being one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not about having a monopoly, it is about having a monopoly in market A and using it to gain in market B. Which is anti-competitive. If downloads of iTunes came bundled with Safari (so you install iTunes and get Safari without them asking at all), then they would be in trouble. Although I don't think they have a monopoly in media players or tablets anyway.

See my previous post for a more detailed explanation.

So Apple isn't bundling Safari with every product they make in an attempt to gain in the browser market?

You are making no sense and I don't see anyone coming down on Microsoft for including IE with the Xbox now. Why are PC's some how considered different the Macs, tablets, media players, and game consoles where browsers are bundled with the product? It's just hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to be a monopoly to be found guilty of anti-competitive business practices, just as companies like Microsoft and Intel have been.

The reality is that tablets are a subset of computers rather than a market in their own right, which means that Microsoft's marketshare still dwarves that of Apple. As for Google, while it does hold the dominant position in the search engine market - one of the reasons it has been and is being investigated by the EU - it doesn't in the browser market and while Chrome does use the Google search engine by default it doesn't use anti-competitive means to gain market share.

Microsoft manipulated the market in order to kill off competition. It was fined and required to introduce the browser ballot of address the damage. It then failed to comply with that legal ruling and may receive a further punishment or have to extend the browser ballot to compensate for it (something Microsoft has already offered to do).

I'm more concerned that the European Commissioner has determined that the lack of browser choice on Windows RT has no grounds to be investigated on. Any marketshare gained on Windows RT will give Microsoft a direct advantage in the traditional Windows browser market, which will shape web standards and give Microsoft undue influence.

I'm not just talking about the mobile arena.

I'm talking about when you start an Apple desktop or laptop. Safari is there by default...with no option to not have it there on startup. It's clearly put there and meant to be the browser you use. It's right there built right into the OS.

Same with Google, heck their Chromebook stuff is based directly on the browser and it's tied in MUCH more so than IE has been tied into Windows.

So why is the behavior OK for others to do while it's not OK for MS to do? The point is that if it's not OK, then it's not OK.

The EU shouldn't be able to say well because Corp A is smaller then they can get away with things that Corp B cannot. That creates an uneven playing field with different rules.

If you can't compete then you can't compete. We don't need governments forcing false competition. If a company has a truly great idea and can keep it going, then they can take the share. Look at what Google did to search. They came out of nowhere and took the world by storm. Look at what Facebook did for social media. They came in and surprised everyone, same with Twitter.

Great ideas with great execution that are usable and responsive WILL gain interest and use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Apple isn't bundling Safari with every product they make in an attempt to gain in the browser market?

You are making no sense and I don't see anyone coming down on Microsoft for including IE with the Xbox now. Why are PC's some how considered different the Macs, tablets, media players, and game consoles where browsers are bundled with the product? It's just hypocrisy.

Microsoft do not have a monopoly on game consoles. Nor are PCs different from Macs in the terms we are talking. This is where you and others are getting so confused. Stop dividing things up into platforms like a geek and start thinking like a businessman. Computers are a market. Browsers are a market. Game consoles are a market. PCs are not, Macs are not, Windows is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone give me an example, anything, anywhere else in the world, where a company was forced by law to advertise for its competitors? Or anything else even remotely similar to this ridiculous Microsoft-only browser ballot law in the EU?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft do not have a monopoly on game consoles. Nor are PCs different from Macs in the terms we are talking. This is where you and others are getting so confused. Stop dividing things up into platforms like a geek and start thinking like a businessman. Computers are a market. Browsers are a market. Game consoles are a market. PCs are not, Macs are not, Windows is not.

Operating systems are a market though? MS still has a majority in the OS market, MS does not have a majority in the browser market anymore

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but this is where it is unfair, how is it fine when you have 50% or less to do what ever you want, but the second you grow past that OH NO you can't do that! it's just not faiir to say do what ever you want since you are too small.. its like saying you have no chance to ever get big to have an influence... so apple can force safari / webkit on you now and its fine... but if they get to 90% market share now they are abusing their power... even though they are doing the same thing they've done since day one..... i dont like how its abuse at one point and not at another, you are still forcing a choice on someone every company has the goal to be the biggest, so you can't go around saying oh they will never get that big... Apple would love to be that big and force their stuff on you... basically the same monopolistic tatics...

For starters, monopolies are heavily regulated for a reason. Markets work best when they are competitive. When you have a monopoly the market not only becomes anti-competitive the damage to consumers and the market become deep and wide ranging. The way capitalism is designed everyone wants to be a monopoly because it is best for them, but society wants competition because it is best for us.

It isn't illegal to be a monopoly it is illegal to abuse your monopoly power. The major difference between Apple in the tablet market and Microsoft in the desktop market is Apple didn't introduce their browser into their tablet after the fact. Microsoft introduced IE after Windows was already a monopoly and used that position to push IE into a monopoly status. This is why MS isn't being pressured about bundling Notepad.exe, Calc.exe, Wordpad.exe, or even Explorer.exe with Windows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone give me an example, anything, anywhere else in the world, where a company was forced by law to advertise for its competitors? Or anything else even remotely similar to this ridiculous Microsoft-only browser ballot law in the EU?

AT&T breakup? Forget what happend there, but it had some ridiculous components to it

It isn't illegal to be a monopoly it is illegal to abuse your monopoly power. The major difference between Apple in the tablet market and Microsoft in the desktop market is Apple didn't introduce their browser into their tablet after the fact. Microsoft introduced IE after Windows was already a monopoly and used that position to push IE into a monopoly status. This is why MS isn't being pressured about bundling Notepad.exe, Calc.exe, Wordpad.exe, or even Explorer.exe with Windows.

See that gets wierd though too, because browsers where standard at the time Apple decided to make iOS... so they pretty much had to bundle it... wasn't really a way not to have a browser in their mobile os, apple did however push the app store model down everyones throat after the fact and basically use their very large mobile device position to force royalties from it from everyone... their way or no way basically unless jailbreaking it, and even then they tried to stop that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See that gets wierd though too, because browsers where standard at the time Apple decided to make iOS... so they pretty much had to bundle it... wasn't really a way not to have a browser in their mobile os, apple did however push the app store model down everyones throat after the fact and basically use their very large mobile device position to force royalties from it from everyone... their way or no way basically unless jailbreaking it, and even then they tried to stop that

Not the same. When Apple started bundling the marketplace they weren't a monopoly in the cell phone space so they didn't use their monopoly in cell phone or in app stores to dominate the cell space. A new issue is if their app store itself is a monopoly since it is the only avenue of selling legitimate apps on the devices, which I think it is, but that hasn't been determined yet on a legal basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always found this stupid, at best. Most non-tech people I know realize there are other browsers out there. A lot of people use Chrome today, which they had to download and install. And we here in the US have never had a browser screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but this is where it is unfair, how is it fine when you have 50% or less to do what ever you want, but the second you grow past that OH NO you can't do that! it's just not faiir to say do what ever you want since you are too small.. its like saying you have no chance to ever get big to have an influence... so apple can force safari / webkit on you now and its fine... but if they get to 90% market share now they are abusing their power... even though they are doing the same thing they've done since day one..... i dont like how its abuse at one point and not at another, you are still forcing a choice on someone every company has the goal to be the biggest, so you can't go around saying oh they will never get that big... Apple would love to be that big and force their stuff on you... basically the same monopolistic tatics...

The argument has never been about supplying a browser with your OS, it's been about using your advantage to manipulate the market, which Microsoft can be argued to be guilty of. For years they purposely designed IE so that any website that was viewed in another browser that was properly W3C compliant would break, and until Windows 7 it was also very difficult to uninstall IE from Windows. Whether Apple's behaviour could be argued to be unethical is largely irrelevant in this instance, they have such a small chunk of the OS market it really isn't important. And Safari isn't deeply bedded in like it is in Windows, you delete the app and that's it, uninstalled. Believe me when I say I have no love for Apple whatsoever but the simple fact is that they have no case to answer. Microsoft was well known to use Windows to abuse their position in the browser market, and they were rightly felt for it. And let's face it the resultant push to make IE more in line with the standards compliance of other web browsers has done favours for every individual that uses the Internet.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For people who still trying to claim the European Union has a biased stance against Microsoft:

Windows RT browser restrictions okay, says EU

http://www.neowin.ne...ns-okay-says-eu

That shows nothing.

I had a chat with Jim Allchin back around the time Vista was coming out regarding all this. By all this I mean the browser stuff plus more things the EU was throwing a fit about.

I obviously cannot go into details in a public forum as regards the content of those talks, but suffice it to say the EU was trying to find every way possible to make it difficult if not impossible for MS to comply early on.

MS found ways to put pressure on them to give very specific guidelines that they could try to adhere to, but it took a long time and a ton of pressure placed on them before it happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What nonsense? 5 seconds on any search engine and I can show you a manufacturer that will happily sell you a system pre-loaded with Linux. Even some of the major names. Maybe most PC's ship with it as default as that's because that's where the money is? You know, catering to the people who are paying for the thing?

And where is this manufacturer based? International is no good, and the choice that is available is poor to say the least, as well as expensive. It's also usually hidden in an obscure section of a website littered with Windows advertising.

I remember a while ago, Dell was selling Ubuntu PC's, and on the very same page, it had a huge banner saying "Dell recommends Windows for your PC" lol. Competition is almost non-existent in the desktop PC market at the moment. That's bad for all of us. And if you can't see that, then you've got Microsoft-tinted glasses on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And where is this manufacturer based? International is no good, and the choice that is available is poor to say the least, as well as expensive. It's also usually hidden in an obscure section of a website littered with Windows advertising.

Erm again, Google, 5 seconds, you'll find links on American sites too. Dell as you mentioned, HP, etc, not exactly fly-by-nights. Got nothing to do with "tinted glasses", except maybe your inability to view a search page. I agree the selection is pretty slim, but again, supply and demand, or the lack thereof determines how many manufacturers ship units, never mind retailers giving up shelf space for them.. no business in their right mind stocks up on products that doesn't sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember a while ago, Dell was selling Ubuntu PC's, and on the very same page, it had a huge banner saying "Dell recommends Windows for your PC" lol. Competition is almost non-existent in the desktop PC market at the moment. That's bad for all of us. And if you can't see that, then you've got Microsoft-tinted glasses on.

That's because people were buying the ubuntu PCs without knowing what ubuntu was. Then when they plugged it in at home and realized everything was different and none of their software works, they would return it to dell.

Sure the guy gets his money back but Dell can no longer sell the PC as new anymore, it has to be marked as refurbished and sold for cheaper and so Dell loses money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.