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

[Max Norris]

In most cases their selection of Linux configurations is very limited, not to mention the fact Linux in itself just isn't a viable solution for many.

I do agree with that... but who's fault is that? Microsoft or Linux? If they want a bigger market share then perhaps they should be pointing the blame where it belongs. The whole monopoly argument just doesn't hold up anymore. The systems are out there.. if people just don't want them that's not exactly Microsoft's fault. If/when they improve their product then demand will increase, more OEMs will start producing them, the whole supply/demand thing. When it's hovering at ~1% for over a decade, don't expect OEMs to trip over themselves to mass produce a ton of systems.

[.Neo]

I do agree with that... but who's fault is that? Microsoft or Linux? If they want a bigger market share then perhaps they should be pointing the blame where it belongs. The whole monopoly argument just doesn't hold up anymore. The systems are out there.. if people just don't want them that's not exactly Microsoft's fault. If/when they improve their product then demand will increase, more OEMs will start producing them, the whole supply/demand thing. When it's hovering at ~1% for over a decade, don't expect OEMs to trip over themselves to mass produce a ton of systems.

I knew you would end up throwing the whole "fault" thing in my face. How predictable. Guess what? It's not a matter of fault or who's to blame. The market developed as it did. Simple as that. Today's fact is Microsoft holds a near-100% market share within the PC market and around a 90% market share within the total desktop space. As such Microsoft is treated differently from other parties and they can't just do anything they want with their platform. This isn't the first time something like this has happened.

That said in my opinion the whole browser ballot thing is behind the times. Today's situation is very different from the one in the late 90s / beginning of the 00s. The browser market is much more fragmented and the vast majority of people, even the non-tech-savvy these days, know where they can get alternative browsers. So yeah, the EU in this instance should give Microsoft a rest already.

[Max Norris]

I knew you would end up throwing the whole "fault" thing in my face. How predictable. Guess what? It's not a matter of fault or who's to blame. The market developed as it did. Simple as that. Today's fact is Microsoft holds a near-100% market share within the PC market and around a 90% market share within the total desktop space. As such Microsoft is treated differently from other parties and they can't just do anything they want with their platform.

Nobody's throwing anything in your face.. don't overreact.. people are allowed to express their views yes? I'm merely pointing out the obvious that Microsoft is being penalized for being the popular choice and everybody here seems to be all gung-ho on this "evil monopoly" nonsense meanwhile ignoring the facts right in front of their faces. If the EU wants to enforce new laws about forcing manufacturers to include choices for the competition, that's fine, I can understand the motivation, but laws should apply to all, not just one. As it stands, it's just biased as all hell, at best.

That said in my opinion the whole browser ballot thing is behind the times. Today's situation is very different from the one in the late 90s / beginning of the 00s. The browser market is much more fragmented and the vast majority of people, even the non-tech-savvy these days, know where they can get alternative browsers. So yeah, the EU in this instance should give Microsoft a rest already.

Now this I can agree with. Hardly new technology, you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who didn't know what a browser is never mind how to use a search engine.

[ArialBlue]

Same old anti EU comments. So silly. How can you honestly believe such dribble.

Microsoft failed to comply, now they get a punishment. If they didn't EU wouldn't have to fine them. Why is that so wrong ?

The browser landscape might be different now but the ruling wasn't made just now. Microsoft have to live with it until the EU decides otherwise.

There is nothing wrong with forcing a browser of choice. EU should shut up and accept this.

[Shane Nokes]

Do they have 90%+ of the market, convicted monoplist ?

No.

Google are being investigated for something else though. Does that make the EU a big meanie looking for money ?

Again, no.

Microsoft are not convicted monopolists either...but you can keep bringing that one up if it makes you feel better when you're tucked in at night...

[ahhell]

The EU needs to **** right off.

[Shane Nokes]

The idea was never to punish every company equally, it's to punish monopolistic behaviour. If you don't have a monopoly, you can't be punished for monopolistic behaviour... period.

The problem is that Microsoft have not been convicted as regards a monopoly, and they are not a monopoly. They are an extremely effective competitor, but still allow all sorts of choice when it comes to what can be ran on the OS. You have ALWAYS been able to install an alternative browser.

It's not necessary to installl IE to provide a ballot like screen which then downloads a browser package from a server. Any programmer with half a brain can code a simple file downloader using sockets. There's no reason to tie IE in with the OS except for the fact that Microsoft wants to use its dominant desktop OS monopoly to maintain browser marketshare so it can push Bing, and its other online services. A clear cut case of antitrust.

So consumers are given a choice over what OS and browser they want when they buy a PC from the store? A browser ballot is a choice, installing IE on every PC by default isn't. It relies on the fact that users either a) don't know about or how to install alternaties or b) take the path of least resistance and accept what ever's on there.

Therefore Apple & Google abuse their market positions by forcing Safari & Chrome onto everything they build as well.

You can't have your cake and eat it too here. You either fault all of them for including a default browser, or you fault none of them. Take your pick.

No you cannot decide to turn and run back to the default position of 'monopoly, monopoly, monopoly' since MS does not have a conviction for being a monopoly...no matter how much you might wish it were so.

[remixedcat]

also it's MS's OS so they can do whatever they want..

[still1]

10% of the world wide revenue? that's a lot of money. I hope they get fined.

[BajiRav]

It's not necessary to installl IE to provide a ballot like screen which then downloads a browser package from a server. Any programmer with half a brain can code a simple file downloader using sockets. There's no reason to tie IE in with the OS except for the fact that Microsoft wants to use its dominant desktop OS monopoly to maintain browser marketshare so it can push Bing, and its other online services. A clear cut case of antitrust.

Wait, do you want them to remove IE the application or Trident the rendering engine?

Another thing, It's well known that Google has near monopoly search marketshare in EU and Google likes to push Chrome if you use any other browser on google.com - what's your opinion on that?

The last point - EU has also said that (apparently in the same statement) it will not look into Google and Mozilla's complaint on Windows RT metro browser restrictions. do you agree with that?

?Third parties have been raising various issues about other aspects of Microsoft?s compliance,? EU Competition Commissioner Joaqu?n Almunia said during the press briefing. ?We have carefully looked at them during the investigation and we don?t see grounds at this point for further intervention.?

[seta-san]

Don't give me that nonsense. Microsoft to this very day holds a firm monopoly over the PC market. If only because just about every single PC ships with Windows by default. In that sense Windows is very much forced upon you since you can't buy the vast majority of computers without it. OS X is basically the one and only true exception, but it only applies to Mac. Linux simply not being a viable option for most.

There's absolutely no alternative that works as well except maybe Mac.. but apple insists on controlling the hardware that's on and linux proves year after year that it's not a desktop OS

[FloatingFatMan]

You're ignoring one of the first questions IE asks after you install it.. which search do you want to use. So much for "clear" antitrust. How about going after the one that's actually got the near monopoly in the search arena, namely Google? I don't recall ever seeing a ballot screen on my old Androids.

My Galaxy Note 2 gave me a browser choice! The stock Android one, or Chrome. :p

Hey! It's still a choice!

[.Neo]

Nobody's throwing anything in your face.. don't overreact.. people are allowed to express their views yes? I'm merely pointing out the obvious that Microsoft is being penalized for being the popular choice and everybody here seems to be all gung-ho on this "evil monopoly" nonsense meanwhile ignoring the facts right in front of their faces. If the EU wants to enforce new laws about forcing manufacturers to include choices for the competition, that's fine, I can understand the motivation, but laws should apply to all, not just one. As it stands, it's just biased as all hell, at best.

We can go back and forth on this all you'd like, fact remains Microsoft is basically the only player within the desktop PC market. Until that changes the browser choice-thing will only apply to them. Like I said before the mobile space is heavily fragmented so there's no point forcing Apple and Google to do the same. If the EU's truly biassed they'd force Microsoft to put up a browser ballot in Windows Phone as well. That however isn't the case.

[theyarecomingforyou]

The problem is that Microsoft have not been convicted as regards a monopoly, and they are not a monopoly. They are an extremely effective competitor, but still allow all sorts of choice when it comes to what can be ran on the OS.

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

Therefore Apple & Google abuse their market positions by forcing Safari & Chrome onto everything they build as well.

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

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

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

[Fourjays Veteran]

I know that it is law, but I have problems with this law. I don't believe it's fair to target just companies who are monopolies, especially when it's the users' choices that have made them the monopoly. I believe that the rules should be the same for everyone and everything. If the EU are going to target Microsoft regarding just the browser, all companies should have to implement the ballot screen for browsers in all of their operating systems. It's just about what's fair, and forcing just Microsoft to do it, merely because users have made them a monopoly, seems very unfair to me. After all, it is the users that have made them a monopoly and the users continue to maintain that market share for Microsoft. Why punish just Microsoft for what the users have done?

Again, the issue is not the company having a monopoly in one market. There is no law against Microsoft having their OS on 100% of computers (not that it is) because as you say the consumer has chosen this. The issue is leveraging that monopoly to create a monopoly in another market. I once thought much the same as you, so I will try to explain (note this is my understanding of it - I'm not a lawyer :p ).

Ok, Microsoft has its OS on 90% of computers (I don't know the exact figures). As Internet Explorer is distributed with it, by default it has 90% of the browser market. The users did not make a choice to use Internet Explorer (although they can later). So this puts any competitors in the browser market at an immediate disadvantage, simply because Microsoft rule the OS market. That isn't to say it is impossible to break into the browser market then, but it is made very difficult.

So continuing the same example, lets say Apple own 10% of the OS market. Just like Microsoft it distributes its own browser - Safari. As they own just 10% of the OS market, the maximum browser share they can obtain is 10%. Because they don't have a monopoly, they can't leverage it in the browser market. Competitors in the browser market are not at a disadvantage to Apple in the browser market as a whole.

The confusion perhaps stems from people viewing the browser market as separate to each platform it is on, rather than as a single market. In the world of technology, it may make more sense to split the market according to platform, but in business it doesn't. A business would make the same money and have the same number of users for a given percentage of the market regardless of which platform it is for.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Well the entire situation was nonsense from the beginning. MS should not be forced to advertise other peoples products. Unless you're running a retail store or are a cars salesman no other business in the world has to do that.

That just makes any fines they are forced to pay that much more of a joke.

I disagree, when you abuse your position to the detriment of your competitors then you should be forced to pull those competitors up to a level playing field. After all, you got to that position illegally and should not be allowed to pay a fine and continue to benefit from those illegal actions.

Also, Apple was recently forced to advertise regarding Samsung. So this isn't a MS exclusive.

But I do have to remember that this is a fanboy site and not a place of logic. Luckily for EU consumers they have a strong governing body protecting their interest. Sadly for us US consumers we're left out on the lurch with only fanboys and capitalism as religion politicians to undermine what little interest we may have.

[MikeChipshop Member]

This entire thing has been a pile of crap from the beginning. An excuse for the EU to throw some weight around and try to act like the big man for a while.

Yes, it's quite clear MS breeched the terms of their sentence but the original charge was BS any way. MS created software that people wanted to use and, as with any business, used their position to push the use of their goods. MS has never been convicted as a monopoly thus shouldn't be tried as one.

MS should be allowed to bundle whatever they feel they want to with their OS and not be forced to push others software.

[123456789A]

MS should impose sanctions on the EU, such as adding Clippy back into the EU version of Office and defaulting the Windows interface to MS Bob.

[neufuse Veteran]

As much as I despise Apple, they aren't a monopoly in the PC market, in fact they don't even come close to being one. Their behaviour in iOS however should be looked at in my opinion.

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

[matt4pack]

Apple OS X doesn't hold a 90% market share. The mobile space in its turn is heavily fragmented. Even though Google has a majority share they simply don't have a monopoly in any way, unlike Microsoft in the desktop PC market. You're comparing apples with oranges.

Apple does have a monopoly in the tablet and media player markets. So when are we going to see ballot screens forced for those?

[neufuse Veteran]

Apple does have a monopoly in the tablet and media player markets. So when are we going to see ballot screens forced for those?

yeah this whole thing gets wierd, because Nintendo for the longest time had a monopoly on handheld game systems, yet there was nothing every done against them. The end story was no one could really compete with gameboy... sega failed at it, neogeo failed at it, PSP didn't really make a huge dent in it, not until smartphones did that get any kind of real competition

[ashpowell]

This doesn't make sense to me.. They built the operating system, it should be up to them to be able to put whatever browser they want on it, without having to make the option available for users to choose another right away. If the end user wants to change they can, I don't see why the EU needs to get on Ms back to show a popup offering other browsers... They built the software they should be allowed to do what they want with it surely?

[f0rk_b0mb]

Microsoft should tell the EU F..k You!!!

[Fourjays Veteran]

Apple does have a monopoly in the tablet and media player markets. So when are we going to see ballot screens forced for those?

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

See my previous post for a more detailed explanation.

[]SK[]

MS failed to comply, fair enough, fine deserved however why this browser choice even exists is absurd imo.