Since 2004, the EU has fined Microsoft 3.04 billion dollars

Earlier this morning we learned that the EU would once again slap the wrists of Microsoft to the tune of $732 million dollars for the (accidental) removal of the browser ballot screen post Windows 7 SP1 update.

While this fine will certainly hit deep in the wallets of Microsoft, it is far less than they have had to pay previously to the EU. If you are starting to get curious about what the total amount of fines levied against Microsoft were over the years, you are in good company.

The first ruling landed in March of 2004 where Microsoft was ordered to pay 794 million dollars in a landmark anti-trust case and was ordered to create a version of Windows without Media Player (N edition).

In July 2006, Microsoft was fined 448 million dollars for failing to provide proper documentation on interoperability that was outlined in the March 2004 ruling.

In February 2008, Microsoft was fined 1.1 billion dollars (899 million Euros), but that was later reduced after a calculation error, resulting in the new fine amount of 1.07 billion dollars (860 million Euros).

And now, as of this morning, you can tack on another 732 million for the browser ballot issue, subject to appeal of course.

When you add up all of the fines issued by the EU since the March 2004 ruling, Microsoft will have paid the EU 3.04 billion dollars in fines once it finally ends the court battles and finally writes the checks. 

While we would love to know how the EU will spend the 3.04 billion dollars it has harvested from Microsoft, we aren't going to hold our breath. 

Source: Wikipedia

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft to now allow Office 2013 PC license transfers once every 90 days

Next Story

Study: Majority of workers admit to installing personal software on work PCs

100 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Microsoft is one if the biggest tax evaders on the planet don't think this corporation is roses and chocolates they get what they deserve. Their licensing terms are horrible and try treat their customers like thieves.

this, only people who deal with microsoft at corporate levels known what they are capable of
i won't spend one word defending this company ever

Sickening, but why they are stupid for paying it, when all they have to say is "Apple doesn't have a browser ballot" then job done, case closed

What I don't get is why don't they go after apple for bundling safari with osx and ios or bundling itunes with osx or ios???

remixedcat said,
What I don't get is why don't they go after apple for bundling safari with osx and ios or bundling itunes with osx or ios???

Because no one has yet filed an antitrust complain?

These kinds of threads just expose the irrational zealotry that Americans have towards their own corporations time and time again. You don't like our laws, don't do business here. If this were a European company doing business inside the US you'd get a whole horde of angry Americans saying that those dirty Europeans just got what they deserved.

Don't like it? tough. We owe you nothing.

How do you know they'd say that? It looks to me like you made a very silly assumption. Spirit Dave, for example, was quite vocal about his disagreement with the EU's decision to fine Microsoft. And guess what? He's from the UK. It's not about Microsoft's country of origin. It's about what the EU did to a multinational software corporation. I highly doubt people's opinion would change if Microsoft was a Canadian company.

Pot kettle black? lol.

I stood by the EU when it came to Intel or the monitor cartel, but just because people disagree on what many would call excessive fines over a ballot screen, doesn't have jack to do with where anyone's from. Excessive is excessive, whether it's Samsung's fines over patent disputes with Apple or what have you.

Javik said,
These kinds of threads just expose the irrational zealotry that Americans have towards their own corporations time and time again. You don't like our laws, don't do business here. If this were a European company doing business inside the US you'd get a whole horde of angry Americans saying that those dirty Europeans just got what they deserved.

Don't like it? tough. We owe you nothing.

and everything you say exposes your irrational hatred of everything American.

Apple v Samsung = YAY! Samsung got what they deserved. How dare they disrespect are intellectual property law! What thieves!

Microsoft v EU = OMG Stupid EU law. Europe just wants money to bail out there failing socialist economy! What thieves!

I've seen very few instances of someone, on Neowin, defending Apple with regards to the Apple vs. Samsung case and billion-dollar verdict (which was recently reduced by $450M). Just because it's an American company doesn't mean most people on Neowin are going to support them.

One would think Microsoft would have learned to obey EU by now... but no. Maybe they should increase the fines to get their attention.

Most are you are mistaking what and why Microsoft got fined in the first place.. they Got fined because they Installed a Browser by default.. they never prevented anyone from installing an alternative browser..
Now how is apple or even Google any different..
An iPad comes with a default browser installed
the Android tablets come with a default browser installed..
Tablets with Microsoft window 8 and RT come with a default browser installed..
Yet MS is still required to provide a Ballot box on WIndows?
Something doesn't seem right.. either have everyone do it or no one do it..

iOS devices and Windows Phone/Surface RT devices (I do not know about android) are limited to ONLY using their own web browsers too. (iOS Chrome is just a front end to Safari. WP/Surface RT also allow these type of browser front-end apps)

Some of these zealots are completely insane defending Microsoft.
If gone unchecked and unchallenged Microsoft would completely dominate any and all software products globally if they could and would silence or just buy out any and all competitors they deem to be a threat to them.

When a company doesn't follow the rules, or act in an ethical manner, it deserves to get fined--and fined heavily. Pity, the US government doesn't have the gumption to do the same. Arrogance is never acceptable behavior.

eu cracks me up.
honestly, do they think their population is so stupid that they can't just make two clicks and a search to download the browser of their choice?

So the anti-ms fanclub got out again I see.

When Intel got fined over a billion for totally screwing over AMD, AMD was actually the one getting most of the money since they plain out lost it when Intel just paid off OEM's not to use other hardware.

Now MS has been fined 3.5bn and NONE of that money has gone to competitors like Mozilla or Opera (for the ballot screen fines). Yeah, that doesn't seem like money grab at all.
"But it's the law" - How about you turd actually learn something about the law and stop copy-pasting just a section of it. There's no law saying "We can extort money from MS when we see fit" - Windows/IE are both MS products and it's non of EU's business what they do with them. I can understand if MS would block all other installs of other browsers, they haven't. One of these days MS will just pull all retail sales on Windows in the EU and will just sell them online, see what happens then, oh my.

84 million downloads trough the ballot screen - how many of them were actually IE downloads huh?

alwaysonacoffebreak said,
So the anti-ms fanclub got out again I see.

When Intel got fined over a billion for totally screwing over AMD, AMD was actually the one getting most of the money since they plain out lost it when Intel just paid off OEM's not to use other hardware.

Now MS has been fined 3.5bn and NONE of that money has gone to competitors like Mozilla or Opera (for the ballot screen fines). Yeah, that doesn't seem like money grab at all.
"But it's the law" - How about you turd actually learn something about the law and stop copy-pasting just a section of it. There's no law saying "We can extort money from MS when we see fit" - Windows/IE are both MS products and it's non of EU's business what they do with them. I can understand if MS would block all other installs of other browsers, they haven't. One of these days MS will just pull all retail sales on Windows in the EU and will just sell them online, see what happens then, oh my.

84 million downloads trough the ballot screen - how many of them were actually IE downloads huh?

The Intel story and this one are grounded in different reasons. And I'm an Apple user, but I disagree with this stuff against MS.

I don't think this thread has fanboys ... I think it has people with opinions. Which in fanboys eyes makes them look like fanboys ...

I know they are different (Intel and this) but it's way hard to figure out who actually has had damages up to 3.5bn with the IE/WMP bundle? Sure, Opera-Mozilla etc have lost some downloads etc. but why on earth does MS have to advertise other companies products for free while they spend money on developing their own products which work the same way.

Also, I'm not a fanboy of MS, I already said in another topic that I'm okay seeing that MS got fined for this since THEY agreed to bundle the screen and all but amounts such as the latest fine are way over the top.

And this thread does have a fair share of anti-ms people, just for the reason that it's MS we're talking about which is sad and should be left for 10 year olds or younger.

The EU need to be shut down ASAP. I thought this whole thing was over and done with. Microsoft should fight back, because honestly why aren't the EU on Google and Apple's asses all the time yet they do the exact same things. Honestly.

j2006 said,
The EU need to be shut down ASAP.

Ermmm... yeah, whatever.

j2006 said,
Microsoft should fight back

And face more fines or lose business to its competitors? Do you really think Microsoft's shareholders would agree to that?

j2006 said,
why aren't the EU on Google and Apple's asses all the time yet they do the exact same things. Honestly.

The EC is currently investigating Google's abuse of its dominant place in the search market and is looking to make recommendations that will require the company to make significant changes to its business practices, with the possibility of a huge fine. To think that the EU is singling out Microsoft is ridiculous. Here are just a few of the antitrust investigations the EU has conducted:

Animal Feed Phosphates Cartel
Methionine Cartel
Telecoms collusion
Michelin's market abuse
Air Cargo Carriers Cartel
Chipmakers Price Fixing
CRT Cartel
Window Mountings Price Fixing
Sodium Glucomate Cartel
Rubber Cartel
Vitamin Cartels

The EU takes a tough stance of anticompetitive business practices. Microsoft would have escaped a fine altogether if it had complied with the legally binding EC agreement, so Microsoft only has itself to blame.

Fundamentally, the end result of a fine is the same as taxes. Yet, you people bitched and moaned about Facebook not paying taxes, but seem to be upset when Microsoft's money is also taken away from them.

While I understand that rules are rules, the browser ballot is such a shady way for the EU to fine them.

Seriously, how hard is it for the user to take 10 seconds and install an alternative browser if they so choose? Nobody is forcing them to use IE. I don't see why Microsoft should be required to hold their hand. Win8 has MSE built-in, so is the EU going to whine about that?

It was a punitive measure imposed in place of a fine in order to correct the economic damage caused by Microsoft's anti-competitive business practices. It had nothing to do with the difficulty of installing another browser, though the fact that 84 million browser downloads were made through the BCS testifies to its efficacy.

Astra.Xtreme said,
While I understand that rules are rules, the browser ballot is such a shady way for the EU to fine them.

Seriously, how hard is it for the user to take 10 seconds and install an alternative browser if they so choose? Nobody is forcing them to use IE. I don't see why Microsoft should be required to hold their hand. Win8 has MSE built-in, so is the EU going to whine about that?

I 100% agree with this statement. Microsoft shouldn't be hand holding. When you buy a Ford, they don't have to offer you the choice of buying the seats from a VW, Vauxhall or Toyota.

That would, of course, be insane. As is this dumb, and brainless browser box decision, made by someone in the legal system with dollar signs in their eyes.

Spirit Dave said,
That would, of course, be insane. As is this dumb, and brainless browser box decision, made by someone in the legal system with dollar signs in their eyes.

The BCS was imposed INSTEAD of a fine. It was only because Microsoft failed to meet its legal obligations that a fine was issued. If Microsoft had complied with the EC agreement then the EU wouldn't have received a penny.

But please, don't let reason get in the way of a good argument.

theyarecomingforyou said,
It was a punitive measure imposed in place of a fine in order to correct the economic damage caused by Microsoft's anti-competitive business practices. It had nothing to do with the difficulty of installing another browser, though the fact that 84 million browser downloads were made through the BCS testifies to its efficacy.

Please explain to us what sort of economic damage is being caused by Windows. Microsoft isn't forcing anything on anybody and there is nothing noncompetitive about what they're doing. Every bit of Windows is customizable and they aren't restricting the user of anything.

Astra.Xtreme said,

Please explain to us what sort of economic damage is being caused by Windows. Microsoft isn't forcing anything on anybody and there is nothing noncompetitive about what they're doing. Every bit of Windows is customizable and they aren't restricting the user of anything.


Arguing specifics wont change anyone's mind. People like theyarecomingforyou essentially worships the government. If the law says X, then you should just follow it. Arguing that X makes no sense will simply be disregarded by those type of people.

Astra.Xtreme said,
Please explain to us what sort of economic damage is being caused by Windows. Microsoft isn't forcing anything on anybody and there is nothing noncompetitive about what they're doing. Every bit of Windows is customizable and they aren't restricting the user of anything.

Microsoft applied pressure on OEMs to prevent them installing competing browsers. It also made it deliberately difficult to remove IE by artificially integrating it into the operating system. More importantly, Microsoft used the Windows platform to give it an advantage in a competing market and unfairly impede competition, which was deemed to undermine product innovation and reduce consumer choice.

There is no doubt that Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows gave it an unfair advantage and reduced competition, as evidenced by the demise of Netscape. It basically didn't give other companies a way to compete legitimately.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Microsoft applied pressure on OEMs to prevent them installing competing browsers. It also made it deliberately difficult to remove IE by artificially integrating it into the operating system. More importantly, Microsoft used the Windows platform to give it an advantage in a competing market and unfairly impede competition, which was deemed to undermine product innovation and reduce consumer choice.

There is no doubt that Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows gave it an unfair advantage and reduced competition, as evidenced by the demise of Netscape. It basically didn't give other companies a way to compete legitimately.


So what? It still doesn't logically follow that the EU gets to profit $3 billion from what you said. If you don't like the service Jim gave me, how can you then claim he owes you money?

Beyond all that, your reply is just mindless regurgitation of excuses used by the government to tax and fine. Why is making IE difficult to remove some how a bad thing that they should have their money stolen? How is giving people a browser on their computer for free, which led to "the demise of Netscape" somehow a bad thing they should be fined for?

Edited by AWilliams87, Mar 6 2013, 4:58pm :

theyarecomingforyou said,

The BCS was imposed INSTEAD of a fine. It was only because Microsoft failed to meet its legal obligations that a fine was issued. If Microsoft had complied with the EC agreement then the EU wouldn't have received a penny.

But please, don't let reason get in the way of a good argument.

Hah. You missed the point entirely. There should never have been EITHER ... fine OR popup box. Don't be an idiot.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Microsoft applied pressure on OEMs to prevent them installing competing browsers. It also made it deliberately difficult to remove IE by artificially integrating it into the operating system. More importantly, Microsoft used the Windows platform to give it an advantage in a competing market and unfairly impede competition, which was deemed to undermine product innovation and reduce consumer choice.

There is no doubt that Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows gave it an unfair advantage and reduced competition, as evidenced by the demise of Netscape. It basically didn't give other companies a way to compete legitimately.

Do you work for Mozilla? Dude ... MS shouldn't have to bundle s**t with Windows. It's their product. When Mozilla come out with their own OS, they can bundle whatever they want. Jesus, you not noticed that Google just release an OS that can ONLY run Chrome, because it pretty much exists inside Chrome. Do you think they should be fined? For not offering a choice?

Spirit Dave said,

Do you work for Mozilla? Dude ... MS shouldn't have to bundle s**t with Windows. It's their product. When Mozilla come out with their own OS, they can bundle whatever they want. Jesus, you not noticed that Google just release an OS that can ONLY run Chrome, because it pretty much exists inside Chrome. Do you think they should be fined? For not offering a choice?


He doesn't believe so yet until the legal scholars come out and says they should. Netscape charged people for installing their browser. Microsoft's browser, on the other hand, was conveniently placed on millions peoples machines for free. Yet people only see negativity by this. No rationally thinking person would ever come to a conclusion that this was bad on their own.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Microsoft applied pressure on OEMs to prevent them installing competing browsers. It also made it deliberately difficult to remove IE by artificially integrating it into the operating system. More importantly, Microsoft used the Windows platform to give it an advantage in a competing market and unfairly impede competition, which was deemed to undermine product innovation and reduce consumer choice.

There is no doubt that Microsoft's bundling of IE with Windows gave it an unfair advantage and reduced competition, as evidenced by the demise of Netscape. It basically didn't give other companies a way to compete legitimately.

this is where a lot of people get it twisted and soooo wrong. the IE engine trident was set up in such a way that it would be used by 3rd party application makers into their own apps which presented many benefits to them. this in itself was the first step towards web-apps....(yeah, the same web-apps that everyone is all rave over).
the advantage it gave Microsoft was that Microsoft saw it first...they were before their time when it came to this. so I guess it was a unanimous decision to hamper Microsoft until others catch up.

you can't just up and remove something when other 3rd party apps depends on it to be there. if you remove it then you would be essentially breaking hundreds or even thousands of apps.

with netscape....um weren't they charging money for their browser? what...Microsoft was giving IE free? whats funny however, is that now everyone is giving their browsers away freely, therefore if it wasn't for Microsoft then everyone would have to pay for their web browsers even to this day.

AWilliams87 said,
So what? It still doesn't logically follow that the EU gets to profit $3 billion from what you said. If you don't like the service Jim gave me, how can you then claim he owes you money?

Economic sanctions are one of the few recourses available to governments in order to deal with abusive business practices. I mean, companies can't be allowed to flagrantly violate the law, nor do most people consider it appropriate to jail those responsible.

As for where the money from fines goes, the EU cannot simply give it to competitors or random charities - then it would be accused of wealth redistribution. And it makes up considerably less than 1% of the overall budget for the EU, so it is largely irrelevant to the overall budget. It is simply a punitive measure designed to ensure compliance with the law. As it standard with other countries, including the US, it is simply absorbed into the overall budget.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Economic sanctions are one of the few recourses available to governments in order to deal with abusive business practices. I mean, companies can't be allowed to flagrantly violate the law, nor do most people consider it appropriate to jail those responsible.

As for where the money from fines goes, the EU cannot simply give it to competitors or random charities - then it would be accused of wealth redistribution. And it makes up considerably less than 1% of the overall budget for the EU, so it is largely irrelevant to the overall budget. It is simply a punitive measure designed to ensure compliance with the law. As it standard with other countries, including the US, it is simply absorbed into the overall budget.


lol. I think you're just trolling now.

theyarecomingforyou said,

I apologise for thinking this was an intelligent discussion.


Yeah, I thought so too until you kept replying the way you did.

ctrl_alt_delete said,

this is where a lot of people get it twisted and soooo wrong. the IE engine trident was set up in such a way that it would be used by 3rd party application makers into their own apps which presented many benefits to them.

Yes, and it goes beyond this.

For example, Help files are displayed using IE. I don't see anything artificial about that. Everybody uses HTML for help files. For example, Apple uses WebKit to dispay help files on OS X. HTML was designed for structured documents -- so why wouldn't you use it when you've spent the money to develop a browser?

What would truly be "artificial" would be if Microsoft were prohibited from using IE to display Help files.

I don't understand why MS just didn't comply? they said that it was a bug, I get that, but why take so long to fix it.

The project manager in charge of implementing the ballot screen should be fired.

It was either deliberate or gross negligence - neither is excusable. Microsoft's dedicated legal team should have been working with the Windows division in order to ensure compliance with the legally binding EC agreement. The reason the fine was so significant was that in December 2011 the company issued a report stating it was in full compliance, which was factually untrue.

Microsoft failed to ensure its compliance as was legally required.

red hook said,
I don't understand why MS just didn't comply? they said that it was a bug, I get that, but why take so long to fix it.

The project manager in charge of implementing the ballot screen should be fired.


They didn't take long to fix it.

NOBODY noticed the BUG/ISSUE until a long time. MS fixed it soon after and they triggered the ballot box for the PCs that missed. So they fixed the bug + everyone missed the ballot got it PLUS they offered to show the ballot for extended period of time as an compensation.

Still €U slapped a large fine.

They ****ed up for sure but funny thing is everyone who stands for "open markets" or "browser choice" etc. failed to notice it was missing until MS themselves reported it.

...and they still got fined.

BajiRav said,
They ****ed up for sure but funny thing is everyone who stands for "open markets" or "browser choice" etc. failed to notice it was missing until MS themselves reported it.

Factually untrue. The EC received reports that the browser ballot wasn't being display and passed that information onto Microsoft. Upon investigating the matter Microsoft discovered the flaw and notified the EC of the steps it had taken to rectify the situation. This was all covered in the Microsoft press release last year: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us...2/Jul12/07-17statement.aspx

Regardless, Microsoft certified in December 2011 that it was in compliance with the BCS when it had been in breach since February 2011.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Factually untrue. The EC received reports that the browser ballot wasn't being display and passed that information onto Microsoft. Upon investigating the matter Microsoft discovered the flaw and notified the EC of the steps it had taken to rectify the situation. This was all covered in the Microsoft press release last year: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us...2/Jul12/07-17statement.aspx

You're picking at details.

The larger point is that the EU notified Microsoft of the flaw on July 1. Microsoft fixed it on July 2.

If the EU had notified Microsoft of the flaw on December 1, 2011, or even on February 1, 2011, then Microsoft would've fixed the issue on December 2, 2011, or on February 2, 2011. And it would not have been in breach all this time.

By the terms of the agreement, Microsoft is itself responsible for complying -- not the EU.

From a moral standpoint, however, all the arguments for Microsoft's negligence also work for the EU and for Opera and for Mozilla. Microsoft could've simply booted up a PC with SP1 and clicked the IE icon to see if BCS popped up? Well, so could the EU or Opera or Mozilla. And if they'd notified Microsoft immediately, then Microsoft would've corrected it immediately.

TomJones said,
You're picking at details.

No I'm not. I was replying to somebody who claimed that Microsoft discovered the issue and reported it to the EC, which was factually untrue.

TomJones said,
The larger point is that the EU notified Microsoft of the flaw on July 1. Microsoft fixed it on July 2.

If the EU had notified Microsoft of the flaw on December 1, 2011, or even on February 1, 2011, then Microsoft would've fixed the issue on December 2, 2011, or on February 2, 2011. And it would not have been in breach all this time.

By the terms of the agreement, Microsoft is itself responsible for complying -- not the EU.

The length of time it took Microsoft to correct it is irrelevant. Microsoft certified to the EC that it was in compliance - something which you acknowledge Microsoft was obligated to ensure itself - when in fact it wasn't. Microsoft failed to honour its legal obligations.

TomJones said,
From a moral standpoint, however, all the arguments for Microsoft's negligence also work for the EU and for Opera and for Mozilla. Microsoft could've simply booted up a PC with SP1 and clicked the IE icon to see if BCS popped up? Well, so could the EU or Opera or Mozilla. And if they'd notified Microsoft immediately, then Microsoft would've corrected it immediately.

This is where I have a problem with your logic. You acknowledge that Microsoft was legally required to ensure its compliance with the EC agreement and yet you seem to be placing the blame on the EC and Mozilla / Opera. Microsoft was responsible for ensuring its compliance with the agreement and it failed. It was fined. I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

theyarecomingforyou said,
Microsoft certified .

reminds me of early ActiveX 'certification',
early IE did said such certified ActiceX as 'Safe',
which is wrong term used, its actualy not-changed since certification process.

Most of that certified ActiveX actually act as malware, thats nowhere 'safe' toward user's privacy, that eventually causing many reactions like anti-ActiveX attitudes.

And if Microsoft actually followed the rules in place, they wouldn't have this problem. I use several Microsoft products, both hardware and software, but admit it, they are an arrogant company. I'm no fan of the EU, but Microsoft will learn sooner or later not to mess with them. Otherwise, they can keep writing out checks for violating the law.

Wouldn't you consider the laws arrogant to step in so heavily onto a privately made product? To fine more than 3 billion for completely optional software about miniscule things such as a basic media player or a simple info page on browsers? If that's not arrogant of the EU than it's just plain ridiculous.

COKid said,
And if Microsoft actually followed the rules in place, they wouldn't have this problem. I use several Microsoft products, both hardware and software, but admit it, they are an arrogant company. I'm no fan of the EU, but Microsoft will learn sooner or later not to mess with them. Otherwise, they can keep writing out checks for violating the law.

I didn't put the EU in charge ... somehow, it formed with reactions from the people in a negative sense. So ... what moral right do they have to steal 3 billion dollars from Microsoft? None. Oh ... and yes... steal. Microsoft makes a product ... they can do whatever they want in it. The EU has zero moral say in it, yet by the law they can rip money from Microsoft's bank account on a whim. The lawsuits are a simple cover ... the EU has zero reason to be involved other than money. Microsoft did nothing wrong. Fact.

Spirit Dave said,

I didn't put the EU in charge ... somehow, it formed with reactions from the people in a negative sense. So ... what moral right do they have to steal 3 billion dollars from Microsoft? None. Oh ... and yes... steal. Microsoft makes a product ... they can do whatever they want in it. The EU has zero moral say in it, yet by the law they can rip money from Microsoft's bank account on a whim. The lawsuits are a simple cover ... the EU has zero reason to be involved other than money. Microsoft did nothing wrong. Fact.


The browser ballot is just another means for those people to steal money. It's amazing to me how people like COKid simply worships any law or whatever the governments says.

Cyborg_X said,
Can I load IE on an iPad?

If Microsoft wanted to design it sure. Please show me that Microsoft was denied that browser by Apple. You can load Chrome on an iPad.

Try again.

I assume the EU can fine M$ because they sell their product within their borders (just like if I murder someone in country X, the government of country X steps in to put me in jail even if I am in country Y), and at this point I am certain that M$ wouldn't still be selling it's product in the EU if it wasn't making a profit or at least breaking even.

Spirit Dave said,

I didn't put the EU in charge ... somehow, it formed with reactions from the people in a negative sense. So ... what moral right do they have to steal 3 billion dollars from Microsoft? None. Oh ... and yes... steal. Microsoft makes a product ... they can do whatever they want in it. The EU has zero moral say in it, yet by the law they can rip money from Microsoft's bank account on a whim. The lawsuits are a simple cover ... the EU has zero reason to be involved other than money. Microsoft did nothing wrong. Fact.


Dont blame the EU, remember how allot of people where crying about the browsers? Mozilla cried almost going bankrupt. Before Netscape and Opera as tiny browsers got half the world to hate IE. And there cryers also sometimes happen to be people in high places.
And IE had to be stopped by the alternative browser community. Even here on neowin the IE hatred is solid (more so to the older versions). You don't think there's people like this in EU government?
There's also allot of people who don't have a clue about computers and just go with it. Thinking its for the greater good. Also keep in mind that the alternative browser use before this already was allot higher in the EU then the US.
EU does stupid things, but the anti-competitive laws and their focus towards it is something I support. Keeping dominating companies in check. If MS and IE where small players this wouldn't have happened.

DarkNet said,

If Microsoft wanted to design it sure. Please show me that Microsoft was denied that browser by Apple. You can load Chrome on an iPad.

Try again.

By your own logic, tell me how Microsoft denied anyone from installing any other browser in the past on currently? Apple is not willing providing an upfront screen telling a user which browser he or she can use.

DarkNet said,

If Microsoft wanted to design it sure. Please show me that Microsoft was denied that browser by Apple. You can load Chrome on an iPad.
Try again.

You can't load the real Chrome iPad. You try again.

seankovacs said,

By your own logic, tell me how Microsoft denied anyone from installing any other browser in the past on currently? Apple is not willing providing an upfront screen telling a user which browser he or she can use.


Apple doesn't really allow other browsers on the iPad or iPhone in the truest sense. You're still reliant on Safari's forked webkit rendering engine, nothing else. Chrome, for example, can't use V8 to compile JS. There are other examples, such as no automatic updates, which Chrome can't use. They may have the same name but Chrome on ipad isn't real Chrome.

"Try again."

DarkNet said,

If Microsoft wanted to design it sure. Please show me that Microsoft was denied that browser by Apple. You can load Chrome on an iPad.

Try again.


Will Apple give me a pop-up to select my default browser, map, etc?

Stefan Dascalu said,
and at this point I am certain that M$ wouldn't still be selling it's product in the EU if it wasn't making a profit or at least breaking even.

That not necessarily true. If they didn't, it would leave a gigantic market open up for others to exploit. I'm sure we could think of many ways that could eventually translate into disaster for Microsoft.

seankovacs said,

By your own logic, tell me how Microsoft denied anyone from installing any other browser in the past on currently? Apple is not willing providing an upfront screen telling a user which browser he or she can use.

How about this for logic. Microsoft agreed and signed to the terms; Apple didn't. Don't agree to things legally and back pedal that is just stupid.

BajiRav said,

You can't load the real Chrome iPad. You try again.

Because of how iOS is designed. Know the facts.

seankovacs said,

By your own logic, tell me how Microsoft denied anyone from installing any other browser in the past on currently? Apple is not willing providing an upfront screen telling a user which browser he or she can use.

How about this for logic. Microsoft agreed and signed to the terms; Apple didn't. Don't agree to things legally and back pedal that is just stupid.

BajiRav said,

You can't load the real Chrome iPad. You try again.

Because of how iOS is designed. Know the facts.

WaqasTariq said,

Will Apple give me a pop-up to select my default browser, map, etc?

Did Apple agree to it? NO! Did Microsoft? YES! You have no argument.

DarkNet said,

Because of how iOS is designed. Know the facts.

iOS is actually capable of running a browser engine, it's the app store rules that doesn't allow it. In other words, Apple doesn't allow other browsers. Your only option is Safari or UIWebView wrapped into a shell like Chrome for iOS.
How is that little fact for you?

BajiRav said,

iOS is actually capable of running a browser engine, it's the app store rules that doesn't allow it. In other words, Apple doesn't allow other browsers. Your only option is Safari or UIWebView wrapped into a shell like Chrome for iOS.
How is that little fact for you?

So they signed something for a browser bailout? NO! Microsoft did? Again, get your facts straight.

DarkNet said,

So they signed something for a browser bailout? NO! Microsoft did? Again, get your facts straight.

Uh I never said that whereas you said Microsoft could run IE on iOS - which isn't true.
Way to run away from your own argument.

BajiRav said,

Uh I never said that whereas you said Microsoft could run IE on iOS - which isn't true.
Way to run away from your own argument.

Really that's running away? iOS has a closed system. They never agreed to any terms. Microsoft agreed to terms. You tried to run away by pointing fingers. I've answered all your questions. That's the best response you got? You think people won't read the thread in its entirety? People are just going to see what you said and say "Yeah, Baji won this one"? That's not how it works (maybe in your head).

DarkNet said,

Really that's running away? iOS has a closed system. They never agreed to any terms. Microsoft agreed to terms. You tried to run away by pointing fingers. I've answered all your questions. That's the best response you got? You think people won't read the thread in its entirety? People are just going to see what you said and say "Yeah, Baji won this one"? That's not how it works (maybe in your head).

/facepalm. Never mind, it's not worth it.

DarkNet said,

If Microsoft wanted to design it sure. Please show me that Microsoft was denied that browser by Apple. You can load Chrome on an iPad.

That's not actually Chrome. That's Safari with a Chrome skin on top.

I suppose one could argue that Chrome and Safari are both WebKit underneath, but there are differences in the extensions that they support.

TomJones said,

That's not actually Chrome. That's Safari with a Chrome skin on top.

I suppose one could argue that Chrome and Safari are both WebKit underneath, but there are differences in the extensions that they support.

Yes, it's already been stated before. But Google designed it to be accepted in the app store. Can I use it to sync to my desktop Chrome? Yes! That's all I care about if I had an iOS device as my daily driver.

DarkNet said,

If Microsoft wanted to design it sure. Please show me that Microsoft was denied that browser by Apple. You can load Chrome on an iPad.

Try again.

Actually iOS Chrome is simply safari with a different frontend. Apple will not allow true third party browsers. Even Chrome which uses the same Safari backend (Webkit/Safari JS) is slower than Safari. Last I heard you couldn't change the default browser on iOS devices without jailbreaking either.

Also you're somehow implying that Microsoft is not allowing you to install Chrome on Windows? Which is a total crock of ****.

Dumbest god damn argument I've ever read on the entire internet.

Edited by nub, Mar 6 2013, 10:56pm :

DarkNet said,

Yes, it's already been stated before. But Google designed it to be accepted in the app store. Can I use it to sync to my desktop Chrome? Yes! That's all I care about if I had an iOS device as my daily driver.


That isn't the point. If you couldn't be able to do that, would you then have a problem with it? Point is Apple and Google does the same thing Microsoft does.

DarkNet said,

If Microsoft wanted to design it sure. Please show me that Microsoft was denied that browser by Apple. You can load Chrome on an iPad.

Try again.


No, that's wrong. Microsoft could not port IE to the iPad - it wouldn't get through Apple's certification process. As nub pointed out, all browsers on the iPad have to be powered by WebKit (essentially, Apple only allows Safari-based browsers on the iPad), Microsoft's Trident engine wouldn't be allowed.

Yes, it's already been stated before. But Google designed it to be accepted in the app store. Can I use it to sync to my desktop Chrome? Yes! That's all I care about if I had an iOS device as my daily driver.

There's no real competition in the iOS browser market because of this, and no real user choice in which engine they want to use. On top of that, Apple reserves some javascript improvements for Safari that other browsers can't use. This isn't just affecting mobile users - since all of the iOS users are using WebKit (that's all they can use), developers are starting to develop only for webkit, and then you have the vendor prefix problem we're having now.

Wow. I can't believe how stubborn people are here. Rather than pointing fingers at ALL the ignorance in this thread let me say this.

FACT
1) Microsoft was at fault. They signed an EU agreement and failed to comply. If you can't comply don't put yourself in that position. Software glitch my ***
2) Chrome is on iOS. It's not the technology that makes Chrome better than Safari or IE but it is what is allowed on iOS. The user doesn't know anything about the underlining factor of what makes a browser a browser. They only care about their browser syncs and bookmarks. What else do they care about?
3) iOS is not Windows. Does Windows Phone have a bailout. Ask yourself why it doesn't?
4) Somebody used the iPad as an example. They failed to make a proper argument because Apple never signed or agreed to a browser bailout. They only are standing in the sidelines like the Microsoft cheerleaders they are pointing fingers on others and saying poor Microsoft. Wahhh!

Pathetic. I can't believe the amount of ignorance you kids have. Their is more to life than supporting one company. Move on and get a life.

You should read this. Valid source it says microsoft.com you cheerleaders should be smiling already: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/ie/ff606439.aspx


Pay very close attention to this question and answer.

Q: Why am I being prompted to choose a browser now?
In December, the European Commission and Microsoft arrived at a resolution of a number of long-standing competition law issues. Microsoft made a legally binding commitment as part of this resolution to distribute the Browser Choice update in Europe.

Now be a good boy or girl and quit your crying and pointing of fingers.

Edited by DarkNet, Mar 7 2013, 2:44am :

You don't seem to understand our (or, at least, my) position. Instead of just lumping us all in the "EU sucks" and "EU is awesome" categories, try listening to arguments and learning what exactly we're arguing about. I know I didn't even mention the fine in my comment, and most of the comments above me didn't either (AFAIK).

DarkNet said,
Wow. I can't believe how stubborn people are here. Rather than pointing fingers at ALL the ignorance in this thread let me say this.

FACT
1) Microsoft was at fault. They signed an EU agreement and failed to comply. If you can't comply don't put yourself in that position. Software glitch my ***


FACT: I agree. Microsoft was at fault, and they should be punished. But being punished $37 for each $40 windows license sold is flat out ridiculous (someone did the math on the other post about this today).

2) Chrome is on iOS. It's not the technology that makes Chrome better than Safari or IE but it is what is allowed on iOS. The user doesn't know anything about the underlining factor of what makes a browser a browser. They only care about their browser syncs and bookmarks. What else do they care about?

Speed? I know every user I've talked to doesn't really care much about whether their favorites are synced, they always tell me "I use Chrome because it's fastfastfast!" Look through http://www.browserchoice.eu/Br...Choice/browserchoice_en.htm - almost every browser advertises about how fast it is as the #1 reason to choose it.

3) iOS is not Windows. Does Windows Phone have a bailout. Ask yourself why it doesn't?

I'm not sure what you mean by a bailout, but if you mean a browser choice screen I don't believe anything should have one. But if we are going to ignore market share and just say every OS needs a browser ballot screen, OSX, Chrome OS, Linux, etc. all need to have one too.

4) Somebody used the iPad as an example. They failed to make a proper argument because Apple never signed or agreed to a browser bailout. They only are standing in the sidelines like the Microsoft cheerleaders they are pointing fingers on others and saying poor Microsoft. Wahhh!

yeah, because AFAIK Apple wasn't forced to agree to a browser choice screen. Why not? they have half of a monopoly in the mobile smartphone industry....

Pathetic. I can't believe the amount of ignorance you kids have. Their is more to life than supporting one company. Move on and get a life.

I'm not supporting one company - I'm (at least attempting) to take an unbiased look at the facts. I have no problem with them being fined for this - they broke their agreement when they shouldn't have. What I have a problem with is the amount of money they're being forced to pay. If I make an agreement with you that I'll give you the choice between a red and blue pen every time I offer you a pen, it's just expected that you're not going to kill me if I forget (or purposefully "forget") one day to give you a choice.

You should read this. Valid source it says microsoft.com you cheerleaders should be smiling already: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/ie/ff606439.aspx


Pay very close attention to this question and answer.

Q: Why am I being prompted to choose a browser now?
In December, the European Commission and Microsoft arrived at a resolution of a number of long-standing competition law issues. Microsoft made a legally binding commitment as part of this resolution to distribute the Browser Choice update in Europe.

Now be a good boy or girl and quit your crying and pointing of fingers.


Just because someone doesn't agree 100% with everything you say doesn't mean they're instantly fanboys of fangirls just rushing to support a company.

To summarize my position: The browser choice thing is stupid. Either enforce it on all major operating systems (Windows, iOS, and Android) or don't have it at all. NOW, Microsoft did enter in to an agreement with the EU that they would offer a browser choice screen. They didn't follow through with that agreement, and should be fined or otherwise punished for that. What they shouldn't be fined for is $37 for each copy of Windows sold without giving the user choice of which free browser they want to use. See TomJone's comment on http://www.neowin.net/news/eu-...ser-menu-violation#comments for the post I was referencing.

Matthew_Thepc said,
...

1) You are beating a dead horse here. Just drop it already with Chrome on iOS. Users are not going into technical details about it. They are happy with what they see.

2) See what people are responding about to me. See what I am responding to back to them. At what point have I disagreed about the severity with the EU?

This thread is based on how silly people are with their dumb examples of "boo hoo I don't get a choice in iOS".

Is your argument that their should be a browser bailout in iOS and Android? Really ? They are as big as Windows? Nobody will never hear of BlackBerry or Windows Phone? That's your entire argument? I feel bad for you if it is. Because you obviously don't know what a monopoly is.

DarkNet said,

1) You are beating a dead horse here. Just drop it already with Chrome on iOS. Users are not going into technical details about it. They are happy with what they see.

2) See what people are responding about to me. See what I am responding to back to them. At what point have I disagreed about the severity with the EU?

This thread is based on how silly people are with their dumb examples of "boo hoo I don't get a choice in iOS".

Is your argument that their should be a browser bailout in iOS and Android? Really ? They are as big as Windows? Nobody will never hear of BlackBerry or Windows Phone? That's your entire argument? I feel bad for you if it is. Because you obviously don't know what a monopoly is.


Chrome isn't on iOS dude. It's just marketing. It's simply modified Safari. Obviously people wont understand the technicality about it, that' probably why they think it's Chrome. But you understand it; you know that it isn't Chrome, so why continue to claim it is? If you weren't able to sync favorites, which most people don't care about on a phone anyway, would you then change your position?

DarkNet said,
Is your argument that their should be a browser bailout in iOS and Android? Really ? They are as big as Windows? Nobody will never hear of BlackBerry or Windows Phone? That's your entire argument? I feel bad for you if it is. Because you obviously don't know what a monopoly is.

I can understand why people are critical of the BCS, as it means Microsoft has to abide by different rules than its competitors. However, Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive business practices and used its influence in the OS market to unfairly influence the market - the BCS was a punitive measure designed to address that, one which Microsoft agreed to.

Personally I have concerns with the way that Apple (with iOS) and Microsoft (with Windows RT) limit the user's ability to install applications of their choice and require purchases to be made through the official stores, especially when each company takes a substantial cut of the revenue. Google (with Android) on the other hand allows competing stores and allows users to install apps from third-party sources, much like Microsoft always did with Windows (and still does with traditional x86-64 apps). I would like to see the EC investigate whether Apple and Microsoft are engaging in anti-competitive behaviour, just like the EC is already doing with Google and its search practices (promoting its own services, altering rankings, etc).

AWilliams87 said,

Chrome isn't on iOS dude. It's just marketing. It's simply modified Safari. Obviously people wont understand the technicality about it, that' probably why they think it's Chrome. But you understand it; you know that it isn't Chrome, so why continue to claim it is? If you weren't able to sync favorites, which most people don't care about on a phone anyway, would you then change your position?

Because for the majority of people it is. https://itunes.apple.com/app/chrome/id535886823?mt=8
They only complain it crashes and one person said he loves chrome. These reviews are just how the average user perceives it. Is Chrome on Android Chrome? I can't run plugins now can I?

theyarecomingforyou said,

I can understand why people are critical of the BCS, as it means Microsoft has to abide by different rules than its competitors. However, Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive business practices and used its influence in the OS market to unfairly influence the market - the BCS was a punitive measure designed to address that, one which Microsoft agreed to.

Personally I have concerns with the way that Apple (with iOS) and Microsoft (with Windows RT) limit the user's ability to install applications of their choice and require purchases to be made through the official stores, especially when each company takes a substantial cut of the revenue. Google (with Android) on the other hand allows competing stores and allows users to install apps from third-party sources, much like Microsoft always did with Windows (and still does with traditional x86-64 apps). I would like to see the EC investigate whether Apple and Microsoft are engaging in anti-competitive behaviour, just like the EC is already doing with Google and its search practices (promoting its own services, altering rankings, etc).

I agree with some of what you have to say. My biggest issue with iOS is how Apple doesn't allow competing stores like you say. The average user can see this in Google Books App, Kindle App, Nook App. You can't purchase books through the app. You have to do it through the browser. That is very limiting to the user. They should be fined for this practice.

Quite frankly I can care less about Windows 8 right now. It isn't in the majority of peoples hands now so I would say not a lot of people are affected by this. If it is ever popular, then hopefully governments will take action on it. But right now, iOS needs to be punished for this practice.

I have no problem with the way Apple handles their browsers rules. It is a closed OS and as such would affect their OS (they have an argument that is compelling). To me, I use that as one of many reasons why Android is better than iOS. It doesn't limit users. Google apps will always be better on Android than iOS. It has nothing to do with Android is maintained by Google (although that is always how it will be perceived by non technical people [the majority]).

theyarecomingforyou said,

Personally I have concerns with the way that Apple (with iOS) and Microsoft (with Windows RT) limit the user's ability to install applications of their choice and require purchases to be made through the official stores, especially when each company takes a substantial cut of the revenue.

At least in the Windows 8 store, developers are free to use their own payment mechanism without paying a dime to Microsoft (except for store registration I guess).

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-u...3599.aspx#options_third_pty

DarkNet said,

Because for the majority of people it is. https://itunes.apple.com/app/chrome/id535886823?mt=8
They only complain it crashes and one person said he loves chrome. These reviews are just how the average user perceives it. Is Chrome on Android Chrome? I can't run plugins now can I?


Obviously the "majority of people" think it's Chrome because that's what it's called. Like you said, people don't understand the technical underpinnings. If I take a V-8 Ferrari 458, paint it yellow and stick a Lamborghini logo on it, the majority of people would also think that it is a Lambo; they probably also don't understand the technical underpinnings of either car. But if you know it's not a Lambo, that all I did was paint a 458 yellow, why would you continue to call it a such simply because the "majority of people" think it is?

BajiRav said,

At least in the Windows 8 store, developers are free to use their own payment mechanism without paying a dime to Microsoft (except for store registration I guess).

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-u...3599.aspx#options_third_pty

That's true too.

AWilliams87 said,

Obviously the "majority of people" think it's Chrome because that's what it's called. Like you said, people don't understand the technical underpinnings. If I take a V-8 Ferrari 458, paint it yellow and stick a Lamborghini logo on it, the majority of people would also think that it is a Lambo; they probably also don't understand the technical underpinnings of either car. But if you know it's not a Lambo, that all I did was paint a 458 yellow, why would you continue to call it a such simply because the "majority of people" think it is?

Your analogy is horrible. For one, nobody took a browser and slapped a logo on it to call it chrome.

Your analogy is flawed. How about if Ferrari took out their engine and put a Toyota Camry engine and transmission. Is it a Ferrari?

Google built and designed it. It is Chrome for iOS. Just like Chrome on Android is not really Chrome for desktop. I can't install plugins on my Chrome browser on my phone. It's the best available at the time.

You get it now? You see the difference? Your analogy makes it seem like a third party designed and slapped the Chrome logo on it.

DarkNet said,

1) You are beating a dead horse here. Just drop it already with Chrome on iOS. Users are not going into technical details about it. They are happy with what they see.

Fine by me, I was just replying to your comment.

2) See what people are responding about to me. See what I am responding to back to them. At what point have I disagreed about the severity with the EU?

I must have misunderstood you; fact #1 in the "FACTS" comment seemed like you thought we were saying Microsoft shouldn't be punished at all.

This thread is based on how silly people are with their dumb examples of "boo hoo I don't get a choice in iOS".

Is your argument that their should be a browser bailout in iOS and Android? Really ? They are as big as Windows? Nobody will never hear of BlackBerry or Windows Phone? That's your entire argument? I feel bad for you if it is. Because you obviously don't know what a monopoly is.


BlackBerry and Windows Phone have, what, 10% market share total - they're pretty much equivalent to Linux and OSX in the desktop OS field. Is this about user choice or monopolies? iOS and Android together have a monopoly in the smartphone OS field. Requiring them to have a browser ballot screen would give almost 80% of smartphone users the choice and freedom to install whatever browser they want. If it's about monopolies, how come when it came out Google was allowed to push Chrome on me every time I visited google.com? isn't that unfairly using their monopoly in the search & homepage field to get people to use their browser?

DarkNet said,

That's true too.

Your analogy is horrible. For one, nobody took a browser and slapped a logo on it to call it chrome.

Your analogy is flawed. How about if Ferrari took out their engine and put a Toyota Camry engine and transmission. Is it a Ferrari?

Google built and designed it. It is Chrome for iOS. Just like Chrome on Android is not really Chrome for desktop. I can't install plugins on my Chrome browser on my phone. It's the best available at the time.

You get it now? You see the difference? Your analogy makes it seem like a third party designed and slapped the Chrome logo on it.


It is, for the most part, third party designed dude. Underneath both mobile Safari and Chrome for iOS are the same rendering engine (modified webkit used by Apple), so how could you speak about swapping out the Ferrari's engine? Google designed the UI, which is why I used the pain job and logo analogy. What makes Chrome Chrome isn't present on iOS.

A quick google search turned up this: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406477,00.asp

First paragraph:

The new Chrome for iOS is not a browser. It is a Chromelike skin over Apple's Safari, and it will be slower than Apple's Safari. As Buzzfeed says, it is "literally required to suck.

You are quite literally the only person I know who argues that Chrome for iOS is real Chrome simple because of the name and because "majority of people" see it as such. I don't know if you simply don't like to be proven wrong or something, but get real. Chrome for iOS isn't real Chrome. No other real browser could be used on any iOS device. You can continue denying the truth as much as you want to save your ego from defeat.

AWilliams87 said,
You are quite literally the only person I know who argues that Chrome for iOS is real Chrome simple because of the name and because "majority of people" see it as such. I don't know if you simply don't like to be proven wrong or something, but get real. Chrome for iOS isn't real Chrome. No other real browser could be used on any iOS device. You can continue denying the truth as much as you want to save your ego from defeat.

Again, I keep repeating myself most users don't know that. They say it is Chrome. You are arguing semantics here. Chrome is on iOS end of story.

DarkNet said,

Again, I keep repeating myself most users don't know that. They say it is Chrome. You are arguing semantics here. Chrome is on iOS end of story.

And again, you're wrong. You're the one arguing semantics, not I. It's easier for you to do so because going up against the facts to the contrary head on obviously proves you wrong.

DarkNet said,

Again, I keep repeating myself most users don't know that. They say it is Chrome. You are arguing semantics here. Chrome is on iOS end of story.

So if Microsoft forced all web browsers on Windows to use Trident/be a skin of IE, and then had the browser ballot that would be fine, right? Because they all have different names? I know you want to end the Chrome on iOS discussion, but some of what you're saying just doesn't make much sense to me. reducing a browser down to whether it has a certain button here instead of there or lets you sign in with this service vs. that service, especially when browsers nowadays are competing on speed and minimalistic designs, doesn't make much sense to me. Sure, many users might think that it's legit Chrome, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not legit Chrome.

It's not only about optional software:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUr...uri=CELEX:32007D0053:EN:NOT
"Commission Decision of 24 May 2004"
"(2) Microsoft Corporation has infringed Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement by:
- refusing to supply interoperability information and allow its use for the purpose of developing and distributing work group server operating system products, from October 1998 until the date of this Decision,
- making the availability of the Windows Client PC Operating System conditional on the simultaneous acquisition of Windows Media Player (WMP) from May 1999 until the date of this Decision."