Microsoft & others complain to EU about Android bundling practices

About a decade ago, if we were to tell you that Microsoft is part of a group who is filing a complaint against another software giant who they feel is unfairly using its own software to promote its own products, you would have thought we were crazy. But that is exactly what is happening today in the EU as Microsoft, Nokia, and a few other companies are accusing Google of unfairly using its own Android software to promote Google's products and services.

Sound familiar? It should, it's a similar complaint that Microsoft faced many years ago that resulted in the browser ballot that you see today and also the N versions of the Windows platforms in Europe. The NYTimes is citing a lawyer for Fairsearch, Thomas Vinje, who filed the complaint, that represents these large corporations by stating that Android software is "a deceptive way to build advantages for key Google apps in 70 percent of the smartphones shipped today”.

One of the issues is that if a vendor wants to use Android it must place other Google services, such as YouTube, in highly visible places on the device's mobile landing screen. This 'bundling' of software is what got Microsoft in to trouble and the consortium is looking to put the same pressure on Google since Android makes up 70% of the smartphones shipped, according to the report.

While the EU has yet to rule on if it will take the case, it's quite interesting to see Microsoft on the other end of a unfair practice accusation since it was once accused of the same thing but in the desktop space.

Source: NYTimes

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft launches public beta for Office 2010 SP2

Next Story

Microsoft Management Summit Keynote highlights

135 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Funny, when I first turned on my GN2 and my old GS3, there wasn't ant Google related content on the home screen at all. In fcat to see the Google based apps, I had to move them from the app drawer.

However I never purchase a Nexus device so I have no idea what it shows front and center,anyone care to provide details?

The complain is a bit weird, to say the least:

-Goggle doesn't bundle apps, in fact Android AOSP is freely available without both Google Play and the Google suite apps for anyone to use.
-You can opt-in to conform with the Android compatibility program and ship with Google Play, and you are still not required to bundle any of the Google suite apps.
-OEMs can go further and opt to also license the Google suite (again, this is optional and akin to the Microsoft Signature program).
-All of the above aren't just theorical possibilities but options brought to the market by the likes of Amazon and plenty of Chinese OEMs.
-Finally, the bit about Android's price undermining competitors' ability to compete: are they seriously suggesting that OSS is a threat to their business that should be forbidden or forced to come with a pricetag? Puh-lease, cry me a river.

Seems to me they didn't even bother to get their facts right before filing the complain.
If they want some sort of "service ballot screen" or whatever, they should be pointing their requests at the OEMs that are licensing the Google suite.

ichi said,
The complain is a bit weird, to say the least:

-Goggle doesn't bundle apps, in fact Android AOSP is freely available without both Google Play and the Google suite apps for anyone to use.
-You can opt-in to conform with the Android compatibility program and ship with Google Play, and you are still not required to bundle any of the Google suite apps.
-OEMs can go further and opt to also license the Google suite (again, this is optional and akin to the Microsoft Signature program).
-All of the above aren't just theorical possibilities but options brought to the market by the likes of Amazon and plenty of Chinese OEMs.
-Finally, the bit about Android's price undermining competitors' ability to compete: are they seriously suggesting that OSS is a threat to their business that should be forbidden or forced to come with a pricetag? Puh-lease, cry me a river.

Seems to me they didn't even bother to get their facts right before filing the complain.
If they want some sort of "service ballot screen" or whatever, they should be pointing their requests at the OEMs that are licensing the Google suite.

The problem is not the fact that Google licenses its proprietary apps to OEMs. Nor is it that they aren't allowing competitors onto Android. The problem that Microsoft and Nokia have with Google is that they will not build apps for Windows Phone and are ACTIVELY REFUSING to grant Microsoft and Nokia access to their APIs so they can build proper apps for Google's services. Microsoft has built a proper YouTube app for Windows Phone. Google, however, will not grant them access to the APIs. Microsoft would like to be able to include Google+ in its social networking options on Windows Phone. Google will not grant them access to the APIs. Google is removing Exchange ActiveSync support for free Google Apps users, but they were reluctant to give Microsoft access to the altered IMAP, CalDAV and CardDAV protocols they use. It seems that everyone defending Google here doesn't seem to actually understand what the lawsuit is about. It's the fact that Google is favoring their own platform while actively refusing others requests for access to their services (well, aside from Apple, but agreements were already in place there, so.... yeah....).

Anthony S said,

The problem is not the fact that Google licenses its proprietary apps to OEMs. Nor is it that they aren't allowing competitors onto Android. The problem that Microsoft and Nokia have with Google is that they will not build apps for Windows Phone and are ACTIVELY REFUSING to grant Microsoft and Nokia access to their APIs so they can build proper apps for Google's services. Microsoft has built a proper YouTube app for Windows Phone. Google, however, will not grant them access to the APIs. Microsoft would like to be able to include Google+ in its social networking options on Windows Phone. Google will not grant them access to the APIs. Google is removing Exchange ActiveSync support for free Google Apps users, but they were reluctant to give Microsoft access to the altered IMAP, CalDAV and CardDAV protocols they use. It seems that everyone defending Google here doesn't seem to actually understand what the lawsuit is about. It's the fact that Google is favoring their own platform while actively refusing others requests for access to their services (well, aside from Apple, but agreements were already in place there, so.... yeah....).

The text of the complain says nothing about whether Googles does or should give third parties access to the APIs of their services.

ichi said,

The text of the complain says nothing about whether Googles does or should give third parties access to the APIs of their services.

No, the text of the complaint is regarding anticompetitive business practices. Denying a competitor access to your _public_ APIs is anticompetitive.

Let's ignore that Microsoft is the #1 offender, and let's assume they are right (if google does indeed push their entire suite of apps on OEMs).

None of these complainers (Microsoft or Nokia), have a single decent app aimed at competing with Google on any service. Except perhaps the SkyDrive app. There's no "Here" maps app, the Hotmail/Outlook apps are a complete mess that is probably not even developed by microsoft, and the bing app hasnt been updated in years and it cant even be installed on most devices/places anyway.

I WISH there were good apps for these services tho.

Julius Caro said,
Let's ignore that Microsoft is the #1 offender, and let's assume they are right (if google does indeed push their entire suite of apps on OEMs).

None of these complainers (Microsoft or Nokia), have a single decent app aimed at competing with Google on any service. Except perhaps the SkyDrive app. There's no "Here" maps app, the Hotmail/Outlook apps are a complete mess that is probably not even developed by microsoft, and the bing app hasnt been updated in years and it cant even be installed on most devices/places anyway.

I WISH there were good apps for these services tho.

HERE is being developed for iOS and Android devices, and they already have a web app available that works on every platform out there. The Hotmail app is a disaster, but they also give you the option to use Exchange ActiveSync, which is bundled into every iPhone and the vast majority of Android phones on the market. The Bing app was discontinued because it made more sense for them to simply focus on the web app (which is basically what the app was). Office 365 is under development for Android and iOS. Your point here simply isn't valid anymore. I could also argue that Google refuses to build apps for Windows and Windows Phone and refuses grant Microsoft access to APIs for YouTube, Google+, Play Music, Play Video, Play Books, Earth, etc. so they can pick up the slack.

Simply laughable. Can I go and buy only MS Word or MS Excel or I am forced to buy the whole office suite? Can I install chrome and firefox on WP? Can I easily change the default search provider in WP? And lets not even get started on the 'requirement' crap, if Amazon and Barnes and Nobles can do without the Play Store and G Apps, why can't the others? What amazes me more is that one company is giving its proprietary apps with its free OS, then how come it can be treated as monopoly? Can the Linux distros be sued in the same way if they decide to include some of their softwares with the built? I highly doubt..

bmthetechfan said,
Simply laughable. Can I go and buy only MS Word or MS Excel or I am forced to buy the whole office suite? Can I install chrome and firefox on WP? Can I easily change the default search provider in WP? And lets not even get started on the 'requirement' crap, if Amazon and Barnes and Nobles can do without the Play Store and G Apps, why can't the others? What amazes me more is that one company is giving its proprietary apps with its free OS, then how come it can be treated as monopoly? Can the Linux distros be sued in the same way if they decide to include some of their softwares with the built? I highly doubt..

OK first off your example is disproportionate and irrelevant to this. Amazon makes ereaders, not android application devices- they just use Android beneath. I've already covered the "why don't you just not use them" card above. Expenses and User experience... Pretty much suicide + DOA trying to launch your own app store in this day and age. Yes you can install Word separately to Excel... thats awkward and has NOTHING to do with this article. Your comments about Windows Phone are irrelevant- they don't have a monopoly. What do you mean can't be treated as a manopoly??? The OEMs actually have little options in terms of customising the OS, Google have to approve of the stuff they change if they want to use GAPPs and the Android trademark.

And yes, Linux deskop suites should be fined by the EUs metric of bundling but their rule only applies to monopolies, or at least when it suits them.

DarkNet said,

If by "Only Very Recently" you mean since Office 2007

More likes since its inception. The "suite" came later IIRC.

ingramator said,
Amazon makes ereaders, not android application devices- they just use Android beneath.

Kindle Fire HD is as much of a tablet as any other: browser, mail client, apps and games from an app store, movies, front facing camera for video conference... definitely not a plain ereader.


ingramator said,
And yes, Linux deskop suites should be fined by the EUs metric of bundling but their rule only applies to monopolies, or at least when it suits them.

EU's metric of bundling? Are you serious?

Praetor said,
only very recently.
False. Word and Excel have been avail as separate since they were introduced on the Mac. The first Office Suite was actually Office 95 which was the first time MS bundled Word/Excel/PPT together. But even after the bundles, Word and Excel has always been avail as standalone products. But for what they cost, it is smarter to buy the suite if you are a business especially.

TechieXP1969 said,
Word and Excel have been avail as separate since they were introduced on the Mac.

A couple years before that even, first versions were available on Xenix (Unix) and DOS. Excel was under a different name at the time if I recall though. Not sure where the "must buy the whole suite" thing came from.

Oh, and my wife's WP 7.5 runs Opera. Just saying.

ingramator said,

The OEMs actually have little options in terms of customising the OS, Google have to approve of the stuff they change if they want to use GAPPs and the Android trademark.

http://www.hclmetablet.com/India/index.php

Take a look here. HCL is an Indian company which is launching Android based tablets since long ago, but without the Play Store or Google apps. I agree they are dirt cheap and not so good, but this shows not only Amazon makes what you described as "ebook readers" Now there are numerous other examples too (think of the cheap chinese products) but HCL is an established brandname and let me tell you, they are quite successful locally.

There are hundreds of different devices out there that contain none of Gapps at all because they have just taken the source code which doesn't include the Gapps which Google is fine with, this case will probably fail.

Same amount of hate and anti this and anti that in this thread. Think I will skip this one and let the EU sort it out. I will say, if Google has to change things...its not going to hurt them much, if at all.

Edited by techbeck, Apr 9 2013, 11:10am :

Yes it would. Imagine this. You buy an Android Phone without a YouTube App and Google+ App. You go to the Play Store and see an App you might be interested in.

You see the screenshots but wait there is also a video preview of this app. You click on it and now you are redirected to install the YouTube App. Your on a metered connection or your connection is wonky. You've already lost interest.

Same thing with leaving a review. You need a Google+ account in order to leave reviews.

There is no reason why Google needs to bloat up the Play Store with Google+ hooks and a YouTube app when there is already the apps out there. This will lead to an unpleasant experience to a lot of users. Microsoft knows this and is hoping that the EU won't catch on.

Microsoft is crying about something that EU will not change. It only makes Microsoft look weak. They should just cry about it on a Scroogled campaign. Those are very effective /s

DarkNet said,
snip

Sounds like Microsoft is just bitching because of where the icon is displayed for YouTube. Dont put an icon on the home screen and keep in the app drawer instead. So may not have to remove the apps, just dont display them in a "highly visible" area.

Which i dont think a visible area is a big deal. MS puts its IE icon on EVERY taskbar on EVERY new system. I call that highly visible.

Filed by Fairsearch, an anti-Google lobby group formed by Microsoft, Nokia, and Oracle

Pretty desperate to form a group to specifically go after Google.

hummm..back in the day IE was tightly bundled with the OS, with no viable option to remove the browser and if someone wanted to remove completely it will break the OS. Android is not like that, see Amazon example: they picked an vanilla Android, didn't install GAPPS and heavily edited the OS for they own purposes, not relying on Google whatsoever.. So i think this case is moot.

Sour grapes for MS..... which ships IE with Bing **** all over the place and make it damn hard to change your search provider.
Also, I didn't see in Windows 8 an option to chose Google instead of Bing.
More, it almost forces you to create a Hotmail email account to sync your settings (and ultimately, to control you, of course).

You are pathetic, MS.

a) its not hard to change, b) you can use the Google search app instead of Bing, there is no deep level featureset that elevates Bing c) Microsoft requires a MICROSOFT account, not a Hotmail account to sync you settings, this can be a Gmail account if you so wish it to be.

The only pathetic thing here is your understanding.

Mortis said,
You are pathetic, MS.

This is just Google getting a taste of its own medicine. They whined about desktop search in vista and browsers in Windows. It's their turn to face the music.

Wow, Microdot is looking more and more desperate each day. They are threatened.

Can I download a Bing Video app for Android? NO!
Can I download Bing Books, Bing Movies, Bing Music on my Android? NO!
Can I download Internet Explorer on my Android? NO!

So what is the problem? If Microsoft actually had a competitive ecosystem, I would say Google is being unfair. However, typical Microsoft. They are always crying about something lately because they were late to the party.

Nobody else offers these services completely. If you buy a Samsung device or an HTC device, they offer movies through their own apps. They are allowed to have that app installed alongside any other app. Because Google says that certain apps have to be installed doesn't mean it is restricting anyone. This is not the same practice that Microsoft did years ago. Microsoft is just hopping that the EU is just as stupid as the jurors were in the Samsung / Apple trial. Make a case by leaving out the truth.

I don't see anything happening to Android by the E.U.

Mate. What are you going on about. This has nothing to do with offering your services to every single platform known to man... This is about anti-competitively shoving Google services down your throat.

Seketh said,
See my above posts (and posts from others) to realize that you are being ignorant.

I like the part where you talk about how Android is for free /s.
Android IS for free, however, the Google's practices of Android and Google Apps is not for free. Even more, Google put some restriction where Google Apps should be installed. For example, the Bing Search bar couldn't be installed by default.

Seketh said,
See my above posts (and posts from others) to realize that you are being ignorant.

Perhaps you need to learn something about Android. Android (the OS) is open source. If a company like Samsung doesn't abide by the rules in place, meaning they don't put those apps in the phone or tablet, then they don't have access to the Play Store (Which is not open source. In fact none of the Google Apps including the Play Store are open source). Samsung can fork Android like Amazon and Barnes and Noble did. You don't see those apps on their platforms yet it is still running Android without access to the Play Store.

It just so happens that you need a Google+ account to write reviews for the Play Store. It just so happens that video previews of apps from the Play Store need YouTube.

Google has to bundle these apps into Android otherwise the Play Store will be crippled. You will see in time what babies Microsoft are being because they are scared of Android. You will see what happens with the EU in all this.

Your ignorance is hysterical. Go troll on another thread. I won't hijack your ignorance on that. Leave this thread for people that actually know something.

DarkNet said,

Google has to bundle these apps into Android otherwise the Play Store will be crippled. You will see in time what babies Microsoft are being because they are scared of Android. You will see what happens with the EU in all this.

Ok so then there is definitely a better claim that a modern desktop OS ffs is crippled when it doesn't have a music or video player and has to FORCE alternatives to the number one used software on a PC, the browser. Why am I not asked if I want to use a different browser on Android?

Haha Microsoft aren't scared of Android, they love it!! MS are making more money off Android then they are off Windows Phone because of the file system patents they hold. They are winning when Android to WP is 80:20 or if it is 20:80- the cash is still flowing. They are making more cash off actually contributing to the tech world then Google is for developing the OS!!

I can't wait for the EU verdict, lets see if they have any sense.

ingramator said,

Ok so then there is definitely a better claim that a modern desktop OS ffs is crippled when it doesn't have a music or video player and has to FORCE alternatives to the number one used software on a PC, the browser. Why am I not asked if I want to use a different browser on Android?

Haha Microsoft aren't scared of Android, they love it!! MS are making more money off Android then they are off Windows Phone because of the file system patents they hold. They are winning when Android to WP is 80:20 or if it is 20:80- the cash is still flowing. They are making more cash off actually contributing to the tech world then Google is for developing the OS!!

I can't wait for the EU verdict, lets see if they have any sense.

Hmm, they teamed up with Nokia who we all know criticized Android a lot. They teamed up with Oracle who lost big on the Google law suite. Yeah Microsoft isn't showing any weakness there /s

As to Why am I not asked if I want to use a different browser on Android? The same can be said on iOS and Windows Phone, right? So as far as I am concerned, all Mobile OS are on the same level with the "mobile browser war".

You are 100% right. Microsoft makes a lot of money from Android. They should just shut up and be happy with the profits.

You still haven't answered why Amazon was so successful with Android on the Kindle yet they don't bundle any software from Google.

I can't wait for the EU verdict. I can't wait for the $MSFT Fanboys to cry foul when it doesn't go Microsoft's way... again.

DarkNet said,

Hmm, they teamed up with Nokia who we all know criticized Android a lot. They teamed up with Oracle who lost big on the Google law suite. Yeah Microsoft isn't showing any weakness there /s

As to Why am I not asked if I want to use a different browser on Android? The same can be said on iOS and Windows Phone, right? So as far as I am concerned, all Mobile OS are on the same level with the "mobile browser war".

You are 100% right. Microsoft makes a lot of money from Android. They should just shut up and be happy with the profits.

You still haven't answered why Amazon was so successful with Android on the Kindle yet they don't bundle any software from Google.

I can't wait for the EU verdict. I can't wait for the $MSFT Fanboys to cry foul when it doesn't go Microsoft's way... again.

I can answer all of that for you.

Alternate browser on Android, but not iOS/WP - Open source OS vs. closed source OSes. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it wrong. I personally don't like having to choose which browser I want to use every time I click a link on my Android. (Yes, I realize I can simply choose a default browser, but that doesn't always work - either the browser doesn't handle the request properly, or the OS asks me which browser I want to use... again) The OS providers (Apple and Microsoft in this case) can finely tune their OS for performance, battery life, security, and compatibility by allowing only one browser on the OS and, instead, letting other apps use APIs to browse the internet. Google, instead, cannot optimize the OS in this regard. Sure, they are allowing people to download alternative browsers, but not everybody needs that functionality. (That seems to be something lost on people who read sites like this.) Most people who own smartphones don't care which browser they use. And 99% of the non-technical people I've met who own Androids use the stock browser.

Amazon's success - Cheap device with it's own content ecosystem. You've got all of the Kindle services PLUS access to compatible Android apps on Amazon's own devices. People purchased the Kindle Fire because it was a hell of a lot cheaper than the iPad and provided all of the same services. It's the same reason why the Nexus 7 is doing well. Cheap device + bundled services for content consumption = success!

But let me ask you this? When Google won't grant Microsoft API access for services like YouTube and Google+, why wouldn't that be considered monopolistic?

Anthony S said,
But let me ask you this? When Google won't grant Microsoft API access for services like YouTube and Google+, why wouldn't that be considered monopolistic?

Is there a written law that they have to?

Also, when I set my browser as default, it is set up as default for typical browser requests. When I get a notification in my email about a post from Google+, I click on the link and I am presented to open in Chrome or Google+. That's because it is a different hook. So I set up the Google+ app as default. After a week, I am no longer presented with options.

I like having a choice. You know they released Google Maps for iOS and it was downloaded by millions of people in the first 48 hours. What good is that app when I get directions from the Safari Web Browser and it automatically opens up in Apple Maps?

DarkNet said,
Is there a written law that they have to?

No, there's no written law, but it is an anti-competitive business practice. And that's exactly what this lawsuit is about.

Anthony S said,

No, there's no written law, but it is an anti-competitive business practice. And that's exactly what this lawsuit is about.

So I guess you'll be in a shock when the EU doesn't do anything about it then. Maybe when that happens, you will see how much you don't know and perhaps work on that so you don't seem so ignorant.

If the opposite happens, I will do the same. Deal?

Hmmm... Yes, I seem ignorant because I'm simply stating that providing access to your APIs to the public but refusing to let a competitor use it is anti-competitive. Because Microsoft has a YouTube-like service. Or a social network of their own. Don't give your competitors access, even though it could only help your own services. The EU will jump at any chance they can get to fine a large corporation.

I will make the deal, but don't be such an ass.

Some of the younger, more excitable and intellectually challenged commenters on here should go back and read the article. This has NOTHING to do with consumers and the software they're allowed to use on Android. This is about Google's stringent requirements for OEMs.

This is one of the reasons Samsung will dump Android and switch to Tizen. Google's terms are far too restrictive.

Neobond said,
Good for them, shouldn't be one rule for Microsoft and another for Google.

You are aware that anyone can download Android and ship the OS with their own hardware without including Google apps. Look at Amazing with their Kindle. They have their own appstore and do not pay Google a single cent.

That is different than Microsoft back in the day REQUIRING OEM that they ship Windows with IE or they do not ship them at all.

MindTrickz said,

You are aware that anyone can download Android and ship the OS with their own hardware without including Google apps. Look at Amazing with their Kindle. They have their own appstore and do not pay Google a single cent.

That is different than Microsoft back in the day REQUIRING OEM that they ship Windows with IE or they do not ship them at all.

Stop using the Amazon example. They don't represent Android as what a consumers believes Android to be. A consumers sees Android as Google Play now in order for a consumer to use Google Play the OEM (ok yes there are illegal hacks to get it on...) has to pass certification and abide by Google STRICT rules. That means integrating so deeply with their OS and shoving crap like Google Play down user's throats. This is one reason why Samsung are ****ed and want to fork off to Tizen.

MindTrickz said,

You are aware that anyone can download Android and ship the OS with their own hardware without including Google apps. Look at Amazing with their Kindle. They have their own appstore and do not pay Google a single cent.

That is different than Microsoft back in the day REQUIRING OEM that they ship Windows with IE or they do not ship them at all.


There was no requirement. IE was a part of Windows.

MindTrickz said,

You are aware that anyone can download Android and ship the OS with their own hardware without including Google apps. Look at Amazing with their Kindle. They have their own appstore and do not pay Google a single cent.

That is different than Microsoft back in the day REQUIRING OEM that they ship Windows with IE or they do not ship them at all.

Pretty sure this only applies to Google branded devices anyway

MindTrickz said,

You are aware that anyone can download Android and ship the OS with their own hardware without including Google apps. Look at Amazing with their Kindle. They have their own appstore and do not pay Google a single cent.

That is different than Microsoft back in the day REQUIRING OEM that they ship Windows with IE or they do not ship them at all.


So where can I buy me some Amazon phone?

BajiRav said,

So where can I buy me some Amazon phone?

Petition Amazon to make one... Or just wait a while, my guess is that we will see an Amazon phone soon.

BajiRav said,

Wrong answer

Not the answer you want but still goes to show it can be done without problems, it's just up to Amazon to decide to release it.

But Windows phones encourage the use of MICROSOFT services (Outlook, Bing, Bing Maps, etc.), not anyone else's!

There's a BIG legal difference between "encourages" and "requires". Google's contract REQUIRES the use of Google Apps or you don't get Android.

This must be a new definition of "open source", what?

Major Plonquer said,
There's a BIG legal difference between "encourages" and "requires". Google's contract REQUIRES the use of Google Apps or you don't get Android.

This must be a new definition of "open source", what?

No it doesn't, get your facts straight. Android can be deployed without the Google experience apps.

Major Plonquer said,
This must be a new definition of "open source", what?

This got nothing to do with Open Source...

OEM have to pay for the Windows Phone OS, unlike Android, which is given away for free.

The OP argument is invalid.

Major Plonquer said,
There's a BIG legal difference between "encourages" and "requires". Google's contract REQUIRES the use of Google Apps or you don't get Android.

This must be a new definition of "open source", what?


False. Look at some devices like the Kindle Fire which uses Android but without the Google Apps preinstalled.

Major Plonquer said,
There's a BIG legal difference between "encourages" and "requires". Google's contract REQUIRES the use of Google Apps or you don't get Android.

This must be a new definition of "open source", what?


1) No, there is no requirement to bundle the Google Apps with any device that ships with Android. The Google Apps are part of the "Google experience" and has a royalty-fee if you want to bundle them with your device.

2) Open Source means that the source is open to the public. It has no relation to the license distributed with the source. An Open Source project could still be prohibited from being used commercially.

this figures seeing as newer android nows comes with chrome
its nice to see android competing with microsoft so i feel like its just fine for them to ship with a default browser so long as in the end we are still able to install what we want to install and use.

The misinformation in this post is laughable, there's no obligation to ship an Android device with the "Google experience" products. The obligation is that if they want to use the Google experience apps they must install them all and promote them prominently. If an OEM wants to ship an Android device without the Google apps, or include any of their own they're quite free to do so.

The problem here is that except cases like Amazon, Android is being given away for FREE with the requirement that it comes with Google Services if an OEM wants to have the "Google experience".

That is effectively creating a monopoly by giving away stuff for free.

Seketh said,
The problem here is that except cases like Amazon, Android is being given away for FREE with the requirement that it comes with Google Services if an OEM wants to have the "Google experience".

That is effectively creating a monopoly by giving away stuff for free.

How is it a monopoly when anyone, like a Amazon, can come along and create their own appstore and ship Android without giving Google a single cent?

Javik said,
The misinformation in this post is laughable, there's no obligation to ship an Android device with the "Google experience" products. The obligation is that if they want to use the Google experience apps they must install them all and promote them prominently. If an OEM wants to ship an Android device without the Google apps, or include any of their own they're quite free to do so.

So therefore the argument should actually be to go after the likes of Samsung and HTC rather than Google.

MindTrickz said,

How is it a monopoly when anyone, like a Amazon, can come along and create their own appstore and ship Android without giving Google a single cent?

This is a common misinterpretation of the license. If you are a HOME and NON FOR PROFIT organisation you can have Android for free. If however you use Android to make money then you pay a licensing fee, Amazon pays this licensing fee. If however you include the Google collection of apps then you get a largely subsided price (prices are negotiated on a per unit basis) because the theory is that Google are going to make money off those services by shoving them down your throat. THAT is the market manipulation and that is one reason why Samsung, HTC, Sony etc all bundle the Google apps. The other is that they cannot afford to make an entire app store for crying out loud. It would be selling point suicide. It has only worked with Amazon because they just merged their already existing book buying back end into a simple store interface. All of the stuff was there already let alone the fact that the device was never touted as an application driven product, more an ebook reading product, evolutionary to their other lines. so that is a really bad example to prove your point.

ingramator said,

This is a common misinterpretation of the license. If you are a HOME and NON FOR PROFIT organisation you can have Android for free. If however you use Android to make money then you pay a licensing fee, Amazon pays this licensing fee. If however you include the Google collection of apps then you get a largely subsided price (prices are negotiated on a per unit basis) because the theory is that Google are going to make money off those services by shoving them down your throat. THAT is the market manipulation and that is one reason why Samsung, HTC, Sony etc all bundle the Google apps. The other is that they cannot afford to make an entire app store for crying out loud. It would be selling point suicide. It has only worked with Amazon because they just merged their already existing book buying back end into a simple store interface. All of the stuff was there already let alone the fact that the device was never touted as an application driven product, more an ebook reading product, evolutionary to their other lines. so that is a really bad example to prove your point.

If you are saying that you can't download Android AOSP and build your product on it without paying Google a cent you are wrong.

ingramator said,

If however you use Android to make money then you pay a licensing fee, Amazon pays this licensing fee.

I don't think that's true, but am open to being proven wrong. Could you provide a link to support the assertion that Amazon pays a licensing fee?

ingramator said,

If however you use Android to make money then you pay a licensing fee, Amazon pays this licensing fee.

I don't think that's true, but am open to being proven wrong. Could you provide a link to support the assertion that Amazon pays a licensing fee?

Seketh said,
The problem here is that except cases like Amazon, Android is being given away for FREE with the requirement that it comes with Google Services if an OEM wants to have the "Google experience".

The only requirement to use the Android trademark is following the Android compatibility program, which also allows you to access the Play store.

You can decide to follow the program to release an Android device but not license the Google apps and use other different apps instead.

Seketh said,
That is effectively creating a monopoly by giving away stuff for free.

Surely for some of the players involved OSS is only good if it fails or is not a direct competitor to their own products, else the bitching starts.

ingramator said,

This is a common misinterpretation of the license. If you are a HOME and NON FOR PROFIT organisation you can have Android for free. If however you use Android to make money then you pay a licensing fee, Amazon pays this licensing fee. If however you include the Google collection of apps then you get a largely subsided price (prices are negotiated on a per unit basis) because the theory is that Google are going to make money off those services by shoving them down your throat. THAT is the market manipulation and that is one reason why Samsung, HTC, Sony etc all bundle the Google apps. The other is that they cannot afford to make an entire app store for crying out loud. It would be selling point suicide. It has only worked with Amazon because they just merged their already existing book buying back end into a simple store interface. All of the stuff was there already let alone the fact that the device was never touted as an application driven product, more an ebook reading product, evolutionary to their other lines. so that is a really bad example to prove your point.


There is no license fee to use Android. The OS is licensed with the Apache Software License 2.0, which gives the licensor the right to modify and sell the software (it is however required that they release any source changes to the public, hence why all OEMs must release the kernel source for their devices) without paying any fees (royalty or otherwise).

However, the Google Apps are not released under the same license, so those are bound by a royalty of $15 (I am not sure if that is the current fee, but I believe it at least used to be) per device.

So, yes, you can make an Android device without Google Apps (that means no access to the Google Play Store either) for free and sell it commercially. But you cannot make an Android device with Google Apps for free and sell it commercially.

"remember the old ie days when Microsoft said windows cannot run without IE"

Exactly, you said it. Remember the OLD DAYS. PAST. Not present.

"Also nobody is forcing you to do anything."

Same arguments being thrown around as when MS was taking the shots...

I think they should go for it... hire some good lawyers and see how the EU responds.

Tuishimi said,
"remember the old ie days when Microsoft said windows cannot run without IE"

Exactly, you said it. Remember the OLD DAYS. PAST. Not present.


so no matter how someone treat you in the past you will forget it today?
so let me curse and calling out your mother today because i know for sure you will ok with it tomorrow. How about that?

astalvfnw said,

so no matter how someone treat you in the past you will forget it today?
so let me curse and calling out your mother today because i know for sure you will ok with it tomorrow. How about that?

Because that's the same...

astalvfnw said,

so no matter how someone treat you in the past you will forget it today?
so let me curse and calling out your mother today because i know for sure you will ok with it tomorrow. How about that?

Did it hurt your feelings when Microsoft made IE part of Windows? Because you make it sound like that when you compare cursing someone with bundling a browser with an OS, as most people don't have that strong feelings regarding what is bundled with their software.

Lamp Post said,

Did it hurt your feelings when Microsoft made IE part of Windows? Because you make it sound like that when you compare cursing someone with bundling a browser with an OS, as most people don't have that strong feelings regarding what is bundled with their software.

nope, i just use IE to download other browser

They're right to complain, and I say that as a somewhat heavy Google/Android user.

Always bugs me, when I add my account to a device, and every time it then tries to get me to join Google+, for example.

Ashenfall said,
They're right to complain, and I say that as a somewhat heavy Google/Android user.

Always bugs me, when I add my account to a device, and every time it then tries to get me to join Google+, for example.


The stupid chrome browser keeps trying to get me in gmail/google+/google store etc.

Ashenfall said,
They're right to complain, and I say that as a somewhat heavy Google/Android user.

Not that they haven't the right to complain, anyone can complain about anything, but it's kinda telling that none of the companies involved in this EU complain have any kind of alternative product released on Android, nothing that competes with Google's own apps.

So why, again, are they actually complaining? Sour grapes.

ichi said,

Not that they haven't the right to complain, anyone can complain about anything, but it's kinda telling that none of the companies involved in this EU complain have any kind of alternative product released on Android, nothing that competes with Google's own apps.

So why, again, are they actually complaining? Sour grapes.

Not exactly true. Microsoft is working on Office 365 for Android and iOS. They've also released SkyDrive, Hotmail, and OneNote apps for Android and iOS (well, maybe not Hotmail on iOS, but every iPhone has Exchange ActiveSync built in, so an app isn't necessary). Nokia is also working on native HERE apps for both Android and iOS, AND they've already released an HTML5 web app that works on every platform. So your point there is moot.

Now, think about the fact that Google won't build apps for or even grant Microsoft access to their APIs for services like YouTube. And the fact that they are removing support for Exchange ActiveSync, opting for their own in-house solution that is looking less and less like the open standards IMAP and Cal/CardDAV everyday.

So they should. They got ****ing hit hard by the EU for IE, so Google should answer.

I don't think it should be an automatic fine either. That's not on. Warn them, and make fixes, don't use it to help prop up your failing economy.

Just like the companies that complained about IE in the 90's? They couldn't compete, right? So they just complained and whined. /s

astalvfnw said,

exactly!!! especially when ms complained i laughed out loud.

Really? The point of the compalint is, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. If we have to do such, then you cant just make an example out of just us. Others have to follow suite.

How would you like it if only men were sent to jail for murder and not women. Would that be fair? Why can't men kill a woman and have the "crime of passion" excuse? I mean if we commit the same crime, we should get the same penalty...right?

mantequillas said,
haha can't compete so file complaints.

So, because Google is on the receiving end, it's ok? Double-standards much?

When Microsoft builds something into it's OS, it's abusing a monopoly, but when Google does it, it's ok? And when Microsoft gets fined for bundling Internet Explorer into its OS, but Apple doesn't get fined for bundling Safari, it's ok?

When Microsoft would like to allow Google's services on its platform but Google refuses to grant them access to their APIs, instead telling people they should purchase an Android device, it's ok?

What makes any other large corporations actions different from Microsoft's? If you think Google's not out for themselves, you're high. I'm sorry you don't like closed source software, but not everyone feels as warm and fuzzy about open source software, either. Especially when most of it is sub par. *cough* OpenOffice *cough*

Haha well they have a very fair argument as Microsoft have for many years have to put up with this kind of crap. If they had to, why shouldn't Google? The case with Google promoting Google services in Android is FAR more prominent than Microsoft's bundling of IE and WMP. Google force you to make a Google account (which forcibly pushes you into gmail, docs etc) to activate your phone. Then shove all their services down the users throat. Now that you have majority market share it appears the tables have turned! Lets see if the EU actually care or do anything about this or at the least relieve the penalties put on MS.

ingramator said,
Haha well they have a very fair argument as Microsoft have for many years have to put up with this kind of crap. If they had to, why shouldn't Google? The case with Google promoting Google services in Android is FAR more prominent than Microsoft's bundling of IE and WMP. Google force you to make a Google account (which forcibly pushes you into gmail, docs etc) to activate your phone. Then shove all their services down the users throat. Now that you have majority market share it appears the tables have turned! Lets see if the EU actually care or do anything about this or at the least relieve the penalties put on MS.

Don't be a fool all Mobile Os's require a sign in before you can use there eco system:
http://www.windowsphone.com/en...tarted-with-windows-phone-8

Also nobody is forcing you to do anything.

Want to txt and make phone calls? buy a flip phone.

Seriously, the uneducated bashing is just stupid.

Manufacturers could remove all the Google apps from Android if they wish, you dont need any of the Google Apps to make Android work. However without the Google Apps the OS lacks and you would have no app store either. With Windows manufacturers had no choice either way.

Apple force you to activate an iPhone by installing iTunes on your computer too... not 100% sure about Windows Phone however im sure you need a live account to make use of various features too.

This is the start of a slippery slope for Google, Apple and even Microsoft and Nokia in the mobile market. Hopefully the Eu will do nothing.

InsaneNutter said,
Manufacturers could remove all the Google apps from Android if they wish, you dont need any of the Google Apps to make Android work. However without the Google Apps the OS lacks and you would have no app store either. With Windows manufacturers had no choice either way.

Apple force you to activate an iPhone by installing iTunes on your computer too... not 100% sure about Windows Phone however im sure you need a live account to make use of various features too.

This is the start of a slippery slope for Google, Apple and even Microsoft and Nokia in the mobile market. Hopefully the Eu will do nothing.

Well for Windows Phone you only need a Microsoft account which can be made for instance with a Gmail account, no pushing of services. iOS the same. This is not the point I'm making though it's the bias against one company whilst choosing to completely anothers actions. I agree with the consensus that it is total bullcrap EU enforcing this, so if you think it is to then why do you think it is OK for Microsoft to have to punch out 50 Windows SKUs just to please the EU? One rule for all. Google now has "monopoly" in the mobile space so they should be subject to similar penalties. I remember distinctly Google being backing many anti-Microsoft monopoly campaigns around the year 2K so lets see how they respond when the same is done to them!

ingramator said,

Well for Windows Phone you only need a Microsoft account which can be made for instance with a Gmail account, no pushing of services. iOS the same. This is not the point I'm making though it's the bias against one company whilst choosing to completely anothers actions. I agree with the consensus that it is total bullcrap EU enforcing this, so if you think it is to then why do you think it is OK for Microsoft to have to punch out 50 Windows SKUs just to please the EU? One rule for all. Google now has "monopoly" in the mobile space so they should be subject to similar penalties. I remember distinctly Google being backing many anti-Microsoft monopoly campaigns around the year 2K so lets see how they respond when the same is done to them!

You don't need a Gmail account you need a Google Account which can be any account. I used my hotmail account until recently, now I use an email at my own domain powered by outlook.com now as my Google Account.

Also where did I say its ok for Microsoft to have to punch out multiple sku's to please the EU? I think its stupid. I actively do my best to avoid installing the browser ballot screen on windows installs I do.

The whole EU thing with Microsoft is a joke, however I really don't think we need the same again in the mobile market.

InsaneNutter said,

You don't need a Gmail account you need a Google Account which can be any account. I used my hotmail account until recently, now I use an email at my own domain powered by outlook.com now as my Google Account.

Also where did I say its ok for Microsoft to have to punch out multiple sku's to please the EU? I think its stupid. I actively do my best to avoid installing the browser ballot screen on windows installs I do.

The whole EU thing with Microsoft is a joke, however I really don't think we need the same again in the mobile market.

I agree with what you are saying! Just to clarify, a Google account makes you a Gmail account and so are forced to have that, with a Microsoft account you can attach it to any email.

"Manufacturers could remove all the Google apps from Android if they wish, you dont need any of the Google Apps to make Android work."

There you have the reason for the antitrust - spot on. You don't "need" the Google Apps, but in Google's Android contract for manufacturers you MUST HAVE the Google Apps or you can't use Android. A clear case of market manipulation.

Major Plonquer said,
"Manufacturers could remove all the Google apps from Android if they wish, you dont need any of the Google Apps to make Android work."

There you have the reason for the antitrust - spot on. You don't "need" the Google Apps, but in Google's Android contract for manufacturers you MUST HAVE the Google Apps or you can't use Android. A clear case of market manipulation.

NO! You are wrong. You can have Android without Google apps. Look at Amazon with their Kindle.

ingramator said,
Haha well they have a very fair argument as Microsoft have for many years have to put up with this kind of crap. If they had to, why shouldn't Google? The case with Google promoting Google services in Android is FAR more prominent than Microsoft's bundling of IE and WMP. Google force you to make a Google account (which forcibly pushes you into gmail, docs etc) to activate your phone. Then shove all their services down the users throat. Now that you have majority market share it appears the tables have turned! Lets see if the EU actually care or do anything about this or at the least relieve the penalties put on MS.

Creating a GMAIL account doesnt mean you have to use it. You just need it to activate the phone, just like you need an account using an email address to use WindowsPhone and iPhone. You rant is moot and lame.

What I see is you are trying to justify this action against Google, but all of them do this which is why this is dumb. It shouldnt matter that Windows has a 90% marketshare. It shouldn't matter that Google has a 70% maretshare.

To use their stuff, you are required to have a email address and password. Remember at first Apple required that you have a .ME email in order to use iTunes. Microosft requires you to have a Windows Live email whether it be MSN or Hotmail. So what is wrong with Google requiring a GMAIL address.

THey dont shove theor services down your throat. You dont have to use Google+, or Google Drive or any other Google service. You dont even have to use Google Maps or Search if you don't want too. No one is forcing you to do anything.

Gte a Nokia Phone. Even Blackberry requires you to create or have a Blackberry.net address to use BBM. Marketshare shouldnt be the reason any one companby should be thrown other the bus like this, unless what they are doing isnt done by anyone else.

Apple has a pretty huge market with iOS. They too have their own browser and other services, why isn;t the EU trolling them? Why becaus ethey aren;t in first place? Why do they have to be?

How about we stop doing business with the EU, its not like we need you. Apple sells most of its products here in the US...same for Microsoft and Google. We dont need surope, we can all focus on otgher parts of the world like Africa, Australia, Canada and Asia.

TechieXP said,

just like you need an account using an email address to use WindowsPhone and iPhone.

Last I checked, you can skip entering account info on Windows Phone and same with iPhone AFAIK.

BajiRav said,

Last I checked, you can skip entering account info on Windows Phone and same with iPhone AFAIK.

Same with Android as well.

ingramator said,

Well for Windows Phone you only need a Microsoft account which can be made for instance with a Gmail account, no pushing of services. iOS the same. This is not the point I'm making though it's the bias against one company whilst choosing to completely anothers actions. I agree with the consensus that it is total bullcrap EU enforcing this, so if you think it is to then why do you think it is OK for Microsoft to have to punch out 50 Windows SKUs just to please the EU? One rule for all. Google now has "monopoly" in the mobile space so they should be subject to similar penalties. I remember distinctly Google being backing many anti-Microsoft monopoly campaigns around the year 2K so lets see how they respond when the same is done to them!

You should check the meaning of "monopoly" and, while there, "oligopoly" as well.
The latter would much better portrait the actual situation in the mobile market.

TechieXP said,
You rant is moot and lame.
...
Microsoft requires you to have a Windows Live email whether it be MSN or Hotmail.

Or gmail or yourowndomain.tld.
You don't need Windows Live. Windows Live is MS Account, and has always allowed you to create using your existing email address.

Fanboy.

ingramator said,

I agree with what you are saying! Just to clarify, a Google account makes you a Gmail account and so are forced to have that, with a Microsoft account you can attach it to any email.

Likewise with a Google Account, my Google account is myname@mydomain.com as is my Windows Live account and iTunes account.

You can use an existing email address with an Android, Windows Phone or iPhone.

MFH said,
Let's see how many people here will b**** about this complaint...

microsoft has no rights to complain to eu. they are the one who break rules. remember the old ie days when Microsoft said windows cannot run without IE???
pity ms is licin as

astalvfnw said,

microsoft has no rights to complain to eu. they are the one who break rules. remember the old ie days when Microsoft said windows cannot run without IE???
pity ms is licin as

You do not know what you are talking about. Its one thing to break the "rules" (ie money extraction laws) but its another to penalise one party and not another.

ingramator said,

You do not know what you are talking about. Its one thing to break the "rules" (ie money extraction laws) but its another to penalise one party and not another.


so you support because you are ms fanboy? i have seen you many time calling eu stupid for fining ms. so your previous claim were just fanboyism? this case will go no where. with wp8 there is no way other vendors can install google service but with android vendors can install even microsoft service. kindle fire is one good example. No one is stopping!!! ms doing this?? shame and shows they are pusy hehe

Windows Phone 8 has no monopoly. Android has. Internet Explorer is Windows' core of internet access. Go ask your mom for some spelling lessons. Trolling is only effective when doing it intellectually; otherwise you look pitiful.

CanonCygnus said,
Windows Phone 8 has no monopoly. Android has. Internet Explorer is Windows' core of internet access. Go ask your mom for some spelling lessons. Trolling is only effective when doing it intellectually; otherwise you look pitiful.

I can see you getting butt hurt. why MS is not here to defend you or what?

astalvfnw said,
exactly!!! especially when ms complained i laughed out loud.

astalvfnw said,
microsoft has no rights to complain to eu. they are the one who break rules. remember the old ie days when Microsoft said windows cannot run without IE???
pity ms is licin as

astalvfnw said,

so you support because you are ms fanboy? i have seen you many time calling eu stupid for fining ms. so your previous claim were just fanboyism? this case will go no where. with wp8 there is no way other vendors can install google service but with android vendors can install even microsoft service. kindle fire is one good example. No one is stopping!!! ms doing this?? shame and shows they are pusy hehe

astalvfnw said,

I can see you getting butt hurt. why MS is not here to defend you or what?

Trolling is indeed exciting, considering all your exclaimation marks. If I were being butt-hurted, I wouldn't have been using the word easily as you do (and are). I guess you are too young, about 10 years old or so, to understand ad hominem.
Beside, why would I need Microsoft to defend me from a sugar-rushing vermin like you?

CanonCygnus said,

*Outlined the troll*

I don't even know what he is trying to say, probs a 10 year old that thinks the internet comes from the clouds.

astalvfnw said,

microsoft has no rights to complain to eu. they are the one who break rules. remember the old ie days when Microsoft said windows cannot run without IE???
pity ms is licin as

Ah ! So once you break the law and have paid the price, you are free game, anyone can break the law at your expense, as you loose the right to seek justice. What an utter silly comment.

ingramator said,

I don't even know what he is trying to say, probs a 10 year old that thinks the internet comes from the clouds.

is that what you think about internet? I see you as someone who has nothing to reply when they are caught. why are not commenting that eu is a bunch of communist now? hehe

Monopoly is such a badly overused term these days. As long as alternatives are allowed and more importantly are without any interferense from "authorities" then there is no monopoly or oligopoly but sound competition.

The fact is however that there is a problem with oligopolies and Microsoft, Google, Google, Android and Facebook and so forth is in that mess. All corporations are in fact in it because of government intervention that just favors the big companies that are under the special protection of the State.

There is no sound competition under the State.

astalvfnw said,
microsoft has no rights to complain to eu. they are the one who break rules. remember the old ie days when Microsoft said windows cannot run without IE??? pity ms is licin as

How are they lying given that mshtml.dll is a core part of the operating system which forms the basis of Internet Explorer? How about allowing people to uninstall non-core parts of Android when it comes to Samsung - such as the 'system critical' component that is dropbox which I cannot uninstall without rooting my device.

astalvfnw said,

is that what you think about internet? I see you as someone who has nothing to reply when they are caught. why are not commenting that eu is a bunch of communist now? hehe

They are socialists , idiot.

astalvfnw said,

so you support because you are ms fanboy? i have seen you many time calling eu stupid for fining ms. so your previous claim were just fanboyism? this case will go no where. with wp8 there is no way other vendors can install google service but with android vendors can install even microsoft service. kindle fire is one good example. No one is stopping!!! ms doing this?? shame and shows they are pusy hehe
Well call me a fanboy if you want, but the whole thing was stupid. Its simple. Windows is suppose to provide the basic needs for the user to be able to use the PC for a purpose. If you purpose is internet access, then you need a way to do it. If I am a company that makes a product, what is wrong with including my own brwoser? If Microosft provided no internet access via a browser, how do you get online? If you dont want to use IE, you use it to access whatever site has the browser you want, you dont make said company provideother competing products.

I am sure none of the McDonald's in Europe provide chicken from KFC...right? I am sure Pizza Hut EU doesn't sell Pizza from some other establish pizza joint in EU...right?

It should matter about marketshare. IE is bundled in WIndows because it is needed to get online. If Microosft didntprovide IE, how would you get online to download something else? Unless you are FTP coherent, you can't. The arguement was lame. Marketshare doesn't always mean other products you sell will be op dog.

IE was top dog, not because Windows is so prevalent, it was because it was the BEST option, though it was NEVER the only option. Nor is it today. Forcing MS to provide a competitors product is stupid. My answer if I was CEO is, I have a BETTER idea. I will pull Windows totally out your frikkin country and all our other products and lets see how they get along then. Because if they could have a better solution to Microosft, they would already be using it. OS X surely isn;t a good solution and neither is Linux. So what you do is you make them need you by taking or threatening to take it away...just like Microosft did to Apple back in 97.

The EU is a buch of spoiled beaurcrats who have larger problems than worrying about a web browser. The whole point was the makers of Opera were crying like a bunch of spoil little children that IE was prevent them from gaining any share. When the fact is Opera is a crappy @$$ browser that quite frankly no one wanted to use.

astalvfnw said,

microsoft has no rights to complain to eu. they are the one who break rules. remember the old ie days when Microsoft said windows cannot run without IE???
pity ms is licin as

astalvfnw said,

microsoft has no rights to complain to eu. they are the one who break rules. remember the old ie days when Microsoft said windows cannot run without IE???
pity ms is licin as

but they should complain. if the browser ballot is required as both a punishment and as a service to the consumer, then everyone one should be held on the same grounds. If not, you're just going to allow another monopoly to form at the expense of a company that was already penalized.

That would be ridiculously anti-competitive and if I was in charge of Google, I would keep on the same path until someone forced me to stop. If for nothing else, it would pave the way to capitalize on the mindshare gains.

Major Plonquer said,
"ad hominem" That's advertising for gay people isn't it? What does that have to do with the time pf day?

You may want to take some Latin classes before posting...
Ad hominem means arguing against a specific subject instead of the argument itself.

[quote=TechieXP said,] Well call me a fanboy if you want [/quote]

Fanboy.

[quote=TechieXP said,] IE was top dog, not because Windows is so prevalent, it was because it was the BEST option [/quote]
L O fricken L. Now I agree, but there was a lot of anti-competitive motivation behind prior versions of IE. Modified JRE embedded against SUN's wishes, custom HTML tags, a broken CSS renderer is definitely best at the time. Let's not forget ActiveX. Nuff said. [/quote]


[quote=TechieXP said,] the makers of Opera were crying like a bunch of spoil little children that IE was prevent them from gaining any share. When the fact is Opera is a crappy @$$ browser that quite frankly no one wanted to use.[/quote]

When I used opera it was 1.28MB, and a hell of a lot better than IE4. They did lose their way when everyone else decided webkit should be the standard to compete against MS' then ****ty browser.

[quote=TechieXP said,]Well call me a fanboy if you want,[/quote]

Fanboy.

[quote=deadonthefloor said,]

Fanboy.


L O fricken L. Now I agree, but there was a lot of anti-competitive motivation behind prior versions of IE. Modified JRE embedded against SUN's wishes, custom HTML tags, a broken CSS renderer is definitely best at the time. Let's not forget ActiveX. Nuff said. [/quote]


When I used opera it was 1.28MB, and a hell of a lot better than IE4. They did lose their way when everyone else decided webkit should be the standard to compete against MS' then ****ty browser.

Fanboy.[/quote]
I like your post, but it had no substance. Yes when IE first appeared it was to prevent what Netscape was doing which was to create an program that didn't use Windows API's. There is a downside to such an environment.

The point was too, IE was better than Netscape because I didn't have to download a bunch of plugins to make it work properly with the web. I liked Netscape too. It was slower than IE after downloading plugins for simple stuff like viewing jpegs. And I also thought it was lame to charge for a better versions which basically included plugins.

What does the size of the file have to do with it? IE which is contained in a 16MB file is small for all the big things it does.

I prefer IE's HTML tags because it insured what you viewed on the web worked with features already included in Windows. For example, the video tag, use Windows Media Player to play video as oppose to going to some 3rd party site to download some crappy video player when one was already included in Windows. And yes WMP was crappy until version 9, but even the crappiest versions of WMP are better than using Quicktime and its plugin.

Opera sucks. As far as being web compliant. Opera and many webkit browsers are not 100% compliant with the spec outlined in the WSC tests. Sure, they score higher than iE, but if those other browsers such at the content I want to view and IE works, the score means nothing.

My whole point was IE dominates solely on the fcat at the time it was the best browser. Certainly better than opera and all OS' come with some type of browser. It is obvious that if you include your own software together, more people will use what is avail...at least that was the norm until MS sat on IE6 for all those years. The fact is, if you don't want IE you have several choices you can make:

1 - you don't have to run Windows. You can choose any free distro of Linux and you can use OS X or some other hack of an OS like ones from Oracle and Unix.

2 - You can install FireFox, Safari, Opera and many other and set them as default in Windows so you never have to see IE again.

As far as your attack on Active X. I prefer it over many low level schemes that prevent me from downloading what could be a virus, by confirming I want to download this file vs downloading some insecure BS. With Active X I have never caught a virus using IE. Thanks to Active X, the virus that was using Flash Installer didn't get on my PC. Thanks to Active X it force script writers to come up with something better.

The greatest thing about IE is, everything you need to protect you from the web is already built in and all the other browsers require you to download scripts that break, use code that doesn't load the pages the way you're suppose to see them.

Now that isn't a fanboy rant, it is simply facts. And now that Microsoft has real competition, IE10 blows all those lame browsers out the water including BETTER support for HTML5 which faster frame rates and less resource hogging. Even though proven facts show its still not better than what Flash can do.

Calling me a fanboi doesn't make it true. I made a choice to simply use what is better and even if I was a spoiled brat who live in the EU, I wouldn't want some lame screen popping up giving me a choice of a browser.

I mean McDonald's is the largest Fast Food giant on the planet. I don't see the EU forcing them to offer menu items so you can pick a Whopper if you don't want a Big Mac. It was stupid because the principles involve were lame and illogical.

If you can't see that, than you're actually worse than a fanboi. So I am happy to be better than you since you think I am a fanboi. You don't need to be a fan of a platform to see something is totally stupid.

TechieXP1969 said,
What does the size of the file have to do with it? IE which is contained in a 16MB file is small for all the big things it does.

Simple, back then there were these things called floppy disks, and you could contain the entire browser and libraries on a single disk. Handy when your college's IT dept had borked IE4 <-----IE4 SEEE that?

As far as where IE is today, you get no argument from me. If you believe that IE was better from the onset, we're going to have words.

I am the biggest MS Fanboy in my geographic area. Yet, I understand what the company went through to become great, and giving Google the chance to catch up on a similar timeline is dangerous.

Not to mention that they are hurting Microsoft and Nokia because they won't build proper apps nor will they give them access to the APIs for their most popular services (i.e. YouTube, Google Maps, etc.), thereby giving another mobile OS to actually succeed. Sounds pretty anti-competitive to me!