EU regulating Microsoft like it's 1999
The European Union's new complaint against Microsoft really takes one back. Like, a decade or so.
Its objection--that bundling a browser into the operating system violates antitrust law--is the same one that U.S. regulators raised in 1996.
The newest allegations stem from a 2007 complaint by Norway's Opera that Microsoft was hurting competition by including Internet Explorer in Windows and by not better adhering to Web standards.
What is most odd about the EU taking up the issue is its timing. The EU spent years going after Microsoft on antitrust matters related specifically to its bundling of products with Windows and didn't focus on the browser. Plus, the move comes as Microsoft's browser share is at its lowest point since the Netscape days.
Firefox is particularly strong in Europe, the area over which the EU has oversight. According to XitiMonitor, IE had a 59.5 percent share in Europe as of November, compared with 31.1 percent for Firefox. Opera had about 5 percent, and Safari half of that. Microsoft lost a full 5 percentage points of market share since April alone.
That doesn't mean that Microsoft will have an easy time in Brussels. As it has shown in the past, the EU is willing to take a tough line with Microsoft, and it is not averse to fining the company and issuing harsh decrees.
David Anderson, an antitrust attorney and partner with Berwin Leighton Paisner in Brussels, said that Microsoft may well face a challenge ahead in persuading the Commission to set aside its preliminary assessment, saying the commission tends to review matters thoroughly before issuing such "statements of objections."
Further he noted that the commission staff may feel emboldened after having won its previous case against Microsoft. It also has the same set of attorneys that worked on that case pursuing the IE issue, Anderson said.
Microsoft is choosing its words carefully at this point, electing not to go beyond a statement that is more procedural than confrontational. But I can only imagine the words being used behind closed doors in Redmond.
In defending itself, Microsoft will find itself against one particularly familiar foe. Opera's chairman, William Raduchel, is a longtime Microsoft critic, dating back to his time at Sun Microsystems, which brought antitrust actions of its own against Microsoft before eventually settling.
For those who need a refresher course in the browser wars, Netscape had the dominant program in the Web's early days, controlling more than half the market as late as 1997. By 1999, though, Microsoft's IE had more than three-fourths of the market.
It has held the dominant position ever since, accounting for greater than 90 percent of the market through 2004, when Firefox began to make serious inroads. Its share has been on the decline since, according to Net Applications.
Microsoft's browser had an 87 percent share in 2005, but by 2007, its share had dropped to 79 percent. Last year alone, IE's market share dropped from 75 percent in January to 68 percent by December.
CNET News' Dawn Kawamoto contributed to this report.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
2. I *hate* this tactic Opera is employing of suing MS in the EU. Firefox has never had to resort to this kind of stuff to gain market share.
3. When the EU regulators look at MS, all they see is an ATM. The merits of the case don't matter -- they just figure they can squeeze a few more billions from MS. US courts should retaliate by fining Airbus for each Euro of subsidy they have received. This is just getting ridiculous.
The worst part of it:
1. EU already tried MS over the bundling issue.
2. They ruled that IE bundled was ok, but Media Player bundling was not.
3. They ruled that MS had to make versions of Windows *stripped of Media Player* available for sale in the EU
4. MS complied.
5. Nobody bought those versions. No customer wants Windows without Media Player.
Now the EU is just going to repeat the same song and dance, extract more money from MS, mandate that they sell a version without the browser that again no customer is going to buy. Absolutely ludicrous!
The majority of computer users are morons. They could not tell you what an OS is, or even a browser, they just know what buttons to click.
Windows bundling IE causes an artificially high market share for them since said morons use what is in front of them.
There is another reason IE needs to be unglued from Windows: security. A browser has no business being part of an OS. It is an application, not an OS module. Countless security issues over the years have turned into a major disaster because IE run rampant in kernel space. These problems would have likely still existed, but the damage would be orders of magnitudes less severe. Making Windows require IE was a marketing decision, with absolutely no technical basis. It has cost MS and its victims(read: customers) untold billions over the years.
Regarding security: IE is trailing in a bunch of areas, but security isn't one of them. Far from it in fact. IE7 completely reworked ActiveX to run in a separate, low-privilege, sandboxed process, and running an ActiveX control is explicitly opt-in. IE itself also runs sandboxed and with low privileges. A phishing filter has been added. Old protocols were culled out to reduce the attack surface. DHTML control removed (same reason). This is just the tip of the iceberg - but the point is, that your view of IE as compromising security is outdated.
Lastly - you say that including IE in Windows has no technical basis. I agree. It *still* belongs in windows! It's like expecting a car to have an audio system in it. Just because there are aftermarket stereos, doesn't mean that a car manufacturer can afford to make cars without stereos. Same thing here. Customers *expect* a web browser when they buy a computer. MS fills that need. OEMs are free to change the default or offer an option at first boot. Customers are free to install a different browser and make that the default. Expecting MS to not ship a browser however, is absolutely and completely ludicrous.
There actually *is* technical merit in including IE in Windows. The rendering engine is needed for a lot of other controls in windows. Dunno why I forgot about that.
Btw: In case you (MS Slayer) object to that -- Consider a few examples - the iPhone, the newly demoed Palm Pre's OS, Mozilla's XUL (used in applications like Songbird, for example). These should make it pretty clear that using a rendering engine for UI frameworks is completely legit. That's essentially what MS did with IE as well.
Opera's case against IE really has no merit. If they sued MS for dirty tricks with CSS on MSN.com then maybe they'd have a case. But that would belong in a regular court -- not EU's antitrust court.
Besides, when you mentioned technical merits, do you mean to suggest that windows should ship without notepad, calculator, paint, a mail client, a wifi configurator etc.? You're relying on the classic computer science definition of an OS as something that gives you an interface to the hardware. I think you know just as well as me that you can't stick to a definition in a pedantic sense when talking about real products out in the market. Customers want a finished and complete product. They don't want the NT kernel -- and the headache of adding stuff to that to get a working computer. And I repeat - they are expressly disinterested in your politics.
I understand what the claim is. The contention with that claim, is that a browser is now considered to be such a vital part of the computing experience, that an OS without a browser is an incomplete OS.
I understand the claim. The contention with that claim -- browsers are now an inseparable part of the computing experience -- an OS without a browser is an incomplete OS in today's world.
@ MSSlayer:
To put in a nutshell.
Some computer users are morons. They could not tell you what OS is better, or even a browser, they just know they don't want Microsoft.
Windows bundling IE causes a real high market share for them since said morons are fortunately not the majority and the majority just wants the best, regardless of what company produces it.
There is no real reason why IE needs to be unplugged from Windows: not even security. A browser has as much business being part of an OS as an audio system has business being part of a car (actually even more, since you can perfectly use a car to its full potential without an audio system, something one simply cannot say about an OS without a browser nowadays - and the prove of that is that you wouldn't be here posting that ignorant comment if it wasn't for... a browser). It is an application just as much as Windows Explorer, Notepad, Calculator, Paint, Windows Mail, the WiFi Configurator, etc, are applications; do you want to unbundle all that from Windows? (maybe morons like you do, most people don't). It has been literally years (more precisely since IE7 was released) since serious security issues in IE have last created serious problems for Windows users, you should get out of that cave and smell the fresh air, moron, the WTC doesn't exist anymore either. These problems almost don't exist anymore, and the damage when they do nowadays (read in Windows Vista with IE7 in Protected Mode, which is the default configuration) is orders of magnitude less severe than it used to be. Making Windows require IE is definitely also a marketing decision for sure, no doubt about that (Microsoft is a business, not a charity organization, in case you haven't noticed yet; same goes for companies like Apple, Opera, and Mozilla), but anyone who understand something about IT (that obviously seems to exclude morons like you) knows there is a technical basis behind that decision, such as serving as a rendering engine for various other applications. It has certainly earned MS money (and we all know how that upsets you morons, but I'm afraid you're gonna have to live with that), and it has helped and been useful for untold billions of Windows users (read users who don't dismiss something just because it's from Microsoft) over the years.
After reading your comment above, and then this one, I realize you're just another MS hater who wants to see MS go down and will say anything that enters your mind to justify your hate. You need to be more intellectually honest with yourself man.
Opera's frustration is easy to understand. Just read up on blogs about MS's lack of support for standards. By not supporting standards correctly, MS has created their own versions of HTML, CSS etc. Due to the MS monopoly, most people use IE and pages must therefore use the MS dialects. The web designer community is very frustrated about this.
EU's case could save web designers lots of time and frustration.
I use IETab with FireFox if there is a page that won't render
We can save coders time and frustration if we made IE rendering the standard
I code for IE, it is standard
No -- opera's frustration is not that easy to understand.
First -- MS did not create their own versions of HTML/CSS -- until IE6 they didn't do a good job of complying with the HTML and CSS standards. The same can be said of any browser that was in the market in 2005. To be perfectly pedantic -- there is still, not one single browser, that can claim to be completely standards compliant. That's how difficult the HTML/CSS standards are, to implement.
If you want to look at companies creating their "own versions" of HTML -- just think back to the "font" tag in Netscape, and the JavaScript ECMAScript wars. This is such a complex topic -- don't fall into the trap of believing the "MS is evil" crowd. There is so much history and so many offenders in the subversion of the HTML standard -- people give MS too much credit when they hold them single handedly responsible.
And lastly, when the industry is finally rallying around the standard, and standards compliance is finally being taken seriously by everybody -- *now* Opera decides to complain to the EU? In spite of the fact that choice has always existed -- for OEMs to install (say) opera as the default, or offer a choice, or for the customer to install Opera as default? This is BS!
Either:
A: They haven't been doing their job for the past X years, its not like MS is a small unknown company that makes products no one knows about and they only recently learned about it.
B: All of a sudden, they've decided they were bored and just want to mess again with MS for the heckof it.
Either way... this commission needs a serious overahaul, take action when its time to take action... not 10 years later.
Somewhere during the course of the antitrust case they realized that they need to make campaign contributions and pay the lobbyists the same as other companies to balance the political forces. It's just political extortion -- nothing else. Google is in the process of learning the same lesson (think back to the DoubleClick acquisition and antitrust investigation into it).
Hopefully, EU will be looking for more than money: support for web standards in Windows.
The reasons for the delay is simple: Opera filed charges later.
No, state over here doesn't go around and police everybody. Yes, somebody has to complain first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_antitrust_case
True, but what HTML engine does it use to get there? (hint: not Webkit, not Gecko... ;) )
And what HTML engine would you purpose they include in Windows so that you can actually use it when you first install Windows?
I'll give you a hint, unless it's their own engine, they would never consider it.
Not the point.
The point is, IE is still in there, in some form or other. If MSFT sold whole computers (hardware+software), this wouldn't be a problem, since it'd be an all-in-one solution. If MSFT gave you a choice of browsers at install time (or allowed the OEMs to provide you the consumer with that choice), this wouldn't be a problem. Since they aren't, don't (and won't), the EU has seen fit to go after them.
If you think that's unfair, then gripe at the EU. IF you live in the EU and think that's unfair, then do what you can to change things. Until then, it's the EU's rules.
"The point is, IE is still in there, in some form or other. If MSFT sold whole computers (hardware+software), this wouldn't be a problem, since it'd be an all-in-one solution. If MSFT gave you a choice of browsers at install time (or allowed the OEMs to provide you the consumer with that choice), this wouldn't be a problem. Since they aren't, don't (and won't), the EU has seen fit to go after them. "
I cannot believe you would post such ignorant and utter garbage. I really thought you were smarter than that. Wow.
Apple sells the hardware and OS together, yet they don't give you options to install Opera, Firefox, Chromoe, and during the installation. THAT right there blows your comments out of the water so high that they will get burned by the sun in the process.
Now if you want to include Apple in the *exact same situation* in your agrument, then you might have something, but somehow I don't think you will. You tend to conveniently 'forget' things like this.
Wow. Your blind hatred for all things Microsoft has left you in quite a sticky situation. Nobody likes a bigot.
Explain this:
1. Why is it ok to bundle software if you sell the hardware as well?
2. Why is it not ok to bundle software if you only sell the OS?
This is an artificial distinction you're coming up with. There's no good reason to distinguish between the two cases. Both parties should be *free to bundle whatever they wish*.
It's simple really. Apple's products are their own, and they should be able to choose what they include in them. Same argument holds for MS. If, for example, Dell wanted to sell computers with FF installed as default, there's nothing stopping them from doing that. If a user wants a different browser, there's nothing stopping them from getting it themselves. For non-expert users who don't care, well, there's already a browser available to use. It's the most basic expectation, that every computer have a browser on it. Windows would be incomplete without a browser.
"If MSFT gave you a choice of browsers at install time (or allowed the OEMs to provide you the consumer with that choice), this wouldn't be a problem."
1. MS cannot tell OEMs what not to install, and what choices to offer at install time. The US DOJ already took care of that.
2. MS did not practice that earlier anyway -- their practice was to tell OEMs "if you want to sell windows, you cannot give customers an option of installing other OSes". The US DOJ ruled against this. The US DOJ ruling specifically states that bundling stuff into windows is OK, provided it does have a tie to a specific service from some other business unit in the company (words to that effect).
Apple gets out of it because:
1) they sell "computers", not just software. Yes, this is a distinction in the EU's eyes, since hardware changes the equation.
2) Apple is obviously not a monopoly, nor are they abusing one.
Does that help you any?
@ All others:
"1. MS cannot tell OEMs what not to install, and what choices to offer at install time. The US DOJ already took care of that."
The United States Department of Justice has no jurisdiction in Europe. None. And no, the US DoJ did not take "care of that", since MSFT merely changed their tactics (now, if an OEM steps out of line, they stand to lose a revenue stream called "co-marketing incentive funds", though it likely goes by other names. Intel developed this quasi-legal kickback tactic a long time ago).
"Explain this:
1. Why is it ok to bundle software if you sell the hardware as well?"
Different industry, different rules. Also, OSX is "included in the price", not "free", which changes the dynamic. Also, Apple does not stop you from uninstalling OSX for a competing OS (you cannot OTOH completely uninstall Internet Explorer from Windows).
"Explain this:
2. Why is it not ok to bundle software if you only sell the OS?"
Again, it's how MSFT bundled it. (see above).
The EU's anti-trust commission is a joke anyway, a bad one at that.
As I remember Opera let users change the user agent to get around this. Besides that was 2003, the EU had shot at address it in their previous action about bundling WMP but they failed.
"Had Microsoft just stuck to Web standards, the complaint might not exist. But Microsoft clearly abused their monopoly position against their competitor."
That would be true if were a current abuse, but now it's going on 6 years.
"Even the fact that the browser is the default is alone enough in my opinion because they didn't invent the browser, they just took the idea and took the market using their monopoly. This is clearly illegal behavior."
Then they better go after Apple. Beside, if they're going after them for that, they missed the mark by more than a decade.
If this is the best they can do, prosecute Microsoft for stuff that happen in the last decade or early part of this one, then they really are a joke.
We saw what happened with Window XP N (XP without media player), it didn't sell. Fact is people don't want an OS that is completely worthless out of the box. That's what the EU seems intent on delivering, there standard of fair seems to be to hobble everyone to the lowest common denominator.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly OS.
If they did, then same rules should apply.
youre kidding me right?...cause why couldnt opera code their browser to be compatable with MS sites then...its not that hard a concept...nowadays theres many options to choose from for a browser...i cant stand IE just as much as the next person and been a full time FF user for at least the last 2-3 years with IE only on pcs that have IE as THE ONLY OPTION such as work pcs, but good lord this is just idiocy at its finest...its not MS fault most of their users are too dumb to know how to install other browsers.
After the EU antitrust suit against BSkyB, which resulted in UK football fans having to pay more to watch English Premiership matches, I have always considered EU antitrust commission to be manned by idiots who does not know what they are doing.
Micorosoft must be forced to support standards correctly -- it's that simple.
after years of conforming to the quirks of IE, we, the coders should know something about them
Every OS comes with a browser. Unless you are willing to wait for a CD, or are willing to use FTP or something, the only way to get another browser is with a browser; or any other software for that matter. Face it, the browser is as much a part of the OS as the console window.
Let's apply EU thinking to other dominant products...
Toyota, you cannot include Michelin tires on your cars because you sell too many cars and consumers will suffer because they cannot buy Goodyear tires. Consumers, you figure out how to drive your car home without tires.
Dell, you cannot include keyboards with your computers because it prevents Logitech from selling products. Consumers, talk to your PC, it will listen.
Sorry Sony, but you can no longer include remote controls with your TVs. There are too many companies that sell universal remotes that you will harm. Consumers, you are a bunch of couch potatos anyway, you can get up and change the channel.
Good thing the EU is so focused on Microsoft. I would hate if they started looking at other industries. Here is a novel idea, listen to consumers instead of companies.
So if Opera gets their way, nobody in the entire world gets a browser unless they buy one separately on cd. Fabulous idea EU, looks like you get an A for miliking Microsoft once again for millions of dollars in revenue to line your greedy pockets with, oh but wait, what of the consumer? Who cares about the consumer, we are lining our pockets with millions from those billionaires in America again and protecting one of our own. Besides, what's a couple bucks to buy a CD with a browser on it right?
You don't NEED a web browser to use a computer.
How about if MS included Office free? Would that be ok with you? I bet some other companies would have a few things to say about that.
MS has MS Wordpad build in, a pretty basic text editor which is OK, so it would be OK to include a very basic browser, but not the full blown Internet Explorer.
As for a web browser I will download and use whatever I want but i agree I need one to go and download my browser of choice. Nothing would be worse then having a brand new OS and having to hunt around and try and find a web browser to install of a cd.
Maybe MS can make it that when you start up IE for the first time you get to go to a screen where it asks if you want to use IE as your default browser or if you wish to download one of the other ones. Which if you choose one of the other ones it makes that one the default from then on.
To me that should be a solution to keep everyone happy and avoid giving a bunch of lawyers more money.
Should one company be allowed to always decide which browser: No
Users today need a better browser than IE -- one that takes standards seriously. The web is too important for one company to be in control of. Look at how many well-engineered standards have suffered as result of Microsoft's dominance. For example, SVG has never seen any use. Why? Because all browsers but IE supports it. MS' veto power is unacceptable.
Go EU!
I am not much of an IE fan, but why not include it with every computer and save consumers the hassle of downloading a full browser themselves.
Legal systems have ways of determining what a monopoly is. Microsoft Windows has been found to be a monopoly both under US law and EU law. Apple OSX has not been found to be a monopoly. It's that simple.
Microsoft has been abusing their Windows monopoly for years. The EU is the only government that has the guts to challenge them.
The US governement tried ten years ago, but George W Bush cancelled the case when he was elected. Who paid for his campaign?
Therefore, EUs case is just and users worldwide will benefit if they can put effective remedies in place.
My suggestion: force Microsoft to ship only standards-complient browsers.
/s
Why? Usually it ends with the EU spending a couple of million bucks, but in return forcing Microsoft, a foreign-owned company, into paying upwards of $600 million euros or more (at least judging by the last time MSFT had to pay up), which means less money that comes from taxing the native populace. Pretty good ROI if you're looking at it from a taxpayer point of view (and far better than most other government activities can muster...)
"Toyota, you cannot include Michelin tires on your cars..."
Bad analogy. Toyota doesn't own Michelin, IIRC, and Toyota makes no money from controlling what tire brand is on their vehicles. Same with every other example you gave, come to think of it.
Long story short - EU's property (or rather, sovereignty), so it's their rules. Play by them or go home
For those in the EU who think it unfair, do what you can to change the rules if you think them unfair.
If I were MSFT, I'd write the market off by simply --and sharply-- stop selling/supporting my products there until the population screamed for their return. I figure it would take about a month at the most before Brussels came crawling back with a whole different attitude...
It doesn't matter whether Toyota owns Michelin or Microsoft owns IE. EU's position is that bundling hurts competition. So from that perspective, even if Microsoft were bundling Firefox with Windows, it still hurts competition. Therefore your line of thought is wrong.
I am looking forward to see EU enforcing the same restrictions on Appe and Linux distros. How is Apple bundling Safari with OSX fine, Linux distros bundling Firefox fine, but Microsoft bundling IE anti-competitive?
Seriously, EU had lots of double standards against Microsoft, but this is a new low.
On a serious note though, I cannot believe that you are advocating what amounts to goverment extortion by the EU. Anyone who has used a computer in the last 10 years knows the browser wars are over. Windows includes IE. OEM's like Dell can ship PC's with whatever software they want, including Opera. Consumers can download whatever browser they want and they do. IE's market share has been declining year after year despite being tied to Windows.
This is like the colonial days of taxation without representation.
"It doesn't matter whether Toyota owns Michelin or Microsoft owns IE. EU's position is that bundling hurts competition. So from that perspective, even if Microsoft were bundling Firefox with Windows, it still hurts competition. Therefore your line of thought is wrong. "
You might want to read the actual complaint before pretending to know what it's all about. Here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10144746-75.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1
I'll wait...
Now go back and read the part which says, specifically: "In the SO, the Commission sets out evidence and outlines its preliminary conclusion that Microsoft's tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice. "
The rest of the complaint is perfectly similar. Notice they don't complain about bundles in general (which was your assertion). Notice they don't complain about Firefox (or Opera, or...) They instead complain about the combination of Windows + Internet Explorer (both of which they mention by name - go figure), and that Microsoft, as owner of both, stands to abuse its monopolistic position in one market to force a monopolistic position in another by bundling-in products - both of which they own.
"I am looking forward to see EU enforcing the same restrictions on Appe and Linux distros."
Get cozy. Apple and Linux operate under different principles: Linux distros already offer you the user a wide variety of browsers at install-time. They've already satisfied teh requirements. Apple, which, in addition to being a non-monopoly and not even in the same classifiable industry as Microsoft, sells whole computers, not just operating systems (this means Apple would have to bundle hardware in an anti-competitive manner before being busted)
HTH.
@NewsReader:
"Hopefully you were not serious about MS pulling out of Europe. That would be throwing away BILLIONS of dollars of revenue. "
I didn't say it would be a permanent removal - the world is still too deeply entrenched in MSFT products to let that happen anyway. It's about all they can do (besides just bend over and take it whenever some EU official wants/needs a large chunk of cash).
"On a serious note though, I cannot believe that you are advocating what amounts to goverment extortion by the EU. "
I don't advocate either position, really... just looking at it from a dispassionate view. MSFT is a foreign-owned company as far as the EU is concerned. The EU is notoriously provincial when it comes to trade matters. All that said, MSFT has zero leverage to effect change in any real fashion (aside from simply boycotting Europe for long enough to bring the place to its knees, which is about the only option they have).
If I were a taxpayer living in the EU, I'd already be nervous about getting taxed even more than I would have to endure anyway, and if the EU can satisfy their money-lust by extorting foreign corporations and not by taxing the crap out of me, hey - no skin offa mine, to put it bluntly.
/P
Are you asserting that Microsoft made and published the HTML standard? W3C would disagree with you...
Who said anything about Microsoft publishing the HTML standard?
No strawmen here.
Alger said "I wonder when a complaint from Trumpett about Winsock will get EU attention." He has a valid point. Trumpet Winsock is an implementation of the TCP/IP protocol stack that runs on Windows -- and the TCP/IP protcol was not invented by MS. Just like a browser implements the HTML standard, which was not invented by MS.
So, your query "Are you asserting that Microsoft made and published the HTML standard?" was pointless. Essentially, everything you said in reply to Alger was pointless.
@t8 then they better go after them for providing OEM PC builders with Windows, which is installed by default on the vast majority of PCs. Maybe Linus Torvalds should file a complaint.
What is clear is that many more people use IE than what would be the case if they didn't get it with Windows. As such, this is an abuse of the Windows monopoly.
"The only difference is that the EU cannot be bought."
Perhaps not buy Microsoft, but then they don't need to when they can fine them absurd amounts of money for not fully complying with vague requirements.
But Microsoft is probably making too much money in Europe to do that. However, they could offer two versions of Windows, one with and the other without the browser, and charge more for the latter. It would be a legally-enforced monopoly, and repay the EU consumers for employing such stupid commissioners.
The Microsoft contribution to the Bush campaign is part of the picture.
Surprised they haven't started this with cell phones and mobile browsers. EU does some retarded crap sometimes... surely there's better ways to spend their money than suing Microsoft for bogus reasons.
Linux usually has FireFox, Konqueror and usually a couple others bundled with it though
one should be won
:)
* File Explorer actually is an integral part of the OS. Don't be dumb.
* Solitaire? See the reason notepad isn't being pursued.
* no more so than a browser engine.
* see also the thousands of solitaire competitors that can't compete with bundled.
* Browser engines are not required to do anything internally on the operating system by way of a GUI. Nice try, though.
* Solitaire has been around for nearly as long as Windows has (and was likely there the whole time...)
Oh and 'spray, about: "File Explorer did not exist in DOS. Prior to that, microsoft did not have anything that matched what {File} explorer does."
You need to go look up DOSSHELL.EXE (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosshell ), which was the progenitor of File Explorer. And while you're at it, get offa my lawn, ya damned kid! ;)
/P
* The EU is complaining about Windows, not DOS.
>> So history should stop at the most convenient point possible to make your argument?
* Browser engines are not required to do anything internally on the operating system by way of a GUI. Nice try, though.
>> We don't even need to go there. Browsers themselves are an integral part of an OS. The classical computer science definition of an OS has no meaning here. Consumers expect a browser with their OS. Nice try, though.
* Solitaire has been around for nearly as long as Windows has (and was likely there the whole time...)
So solitaire makers know that either they need to find a different platform, or do something compelling. Opera needs to do the same. IE belongs in windows. All other windows browsers are now 'aftermarket' browsers (just like on the Mac). If you have some compelling differentiator (like FF) you can thrive. If you find some other niche, you can thrive. If you can convince OEMs that their customers will be happier with your browser pre-installed as default you can thrive. Opera, as good as it is, isn't compelling to users. Simple.
* "Browsers themselves are an integral part of an OS" - Err, no they are not. You can run an operating system just fine without a web browser, else it wouldn't even boot. Anything else reeks of desperation to change simple facts to suit your prejudices.
* "So solitaire makers know that either they need to find a different platform, or do something compelling." - Nice try (no, really... ) but this one is a question of timing. If MSFT had included a web browser with the earliest time available (e.g. in 1994-95), this whole thing would be moot point. But... MSFT didn't do that - instead, they built one only when they realized that there was a market to be had, and once numerous makers were already out there.
/P
When IE and Netscape came out, we didn't send out an army of lawyers... heck, most of us spent an hour downloading Netscape on 9600/14.4kps connections just to use a browser better than the one developed in-house.
Was it unfair for Microsoft to eventually bundle IE with the OS? Maybe... but when people were still on slowass dialup, the last thing you wanted to do was spend half the day downloading a browser. I remember the joy of Opera when it was small enough to fit on a floppy disc. It was very small, very light and very quick to download. There's always been plenty of browser options out there. Don't fault Microsoft for people being too damned lazy to download an alternative browser when Microsoft tried to give you all the tools you need to work and play out of the box.
Apple should be investigated for all the stuff it bundles, from Safari, to Garage Band, to iPhoto, iLife, iMovie, Time Machine and so on... when makers of third party products have a hard time selling their wares because Apple included competing products in the OS install, it's the same thing. Why does Apple get a free pass in this aspect? Remember how Apple stole the whole widget thing from Konfabulator and implemented pretty much the exact same thing as if Konfabulator had never been around? Where's the EU on those matters?
I hear the EU criticize iTunes a lot, but I never see them actually doing anything about it. They will pick on Microsoft all day long though.
Shipping Gimp and VLC and Opera with windows is a great idea.
If you want those programs bundled then complain to the OEM's as it is very easy to ship a Windows PC with those programs pre-installed.
You don't need to buy Windows when buying a PC, complain to the OEMs about this, not MS.
Dell's linux option is only a remote possibility for most users, and it doesn't change the fact that Windows -- according to the courts -- is a monopoly.
there are other ways to buy a computer than at an effin store
Some people say it should be left as it is, well I say MS should have removed it years ago, and they're just rubbing our faces in it now to keep building IE into the O/S.
How many O/Ss have they done since then, and they keep building the browser in? They're doing the same thing now with Media Player (they've made it full featured).
WHEN WILL THEY LEARN THEIR LESSON?
And, how PROGRAMMED can people be to just accept this and think there's nothing wrong with it?
There is no problem with them including something that, without it, no one would be able to get onto the internet.
blame the authors = blame the victims
I think it is up to the computer manufactures to include a different browser if they wish to do so.
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/operaStuff/aboutOpera.html
- by rossking January 16, 2009 5:27 PM PST
- How come nobody ever has a problem (Govt/Consumers) with Apple and OS X. It has a built in browser safari, nobody is forcing the Eu to remove this.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by mickeymjay January 16, 2009 7:51 PM PST
- I totally agree Rossking.
- Like this
-
- by MSSlayer January 16, 2009 9:12 PM PST
- The EU doesn't have to because Safari can be completely removed. IE can not.
- Like this
-
- by MSSlayer January 16, 2009 9:13 PM PST
- A browsers runs on top of an OS. It is not part of it, or shouldn't be if you value security.
- Like this
-
- by Lerianis January 16, 2009 9:26 PM PST
- Wrong, MSSlayer. A browser SHOULD be part of the OS when it is using the same things that the OS in question is using.
- Like this
-
- by t8 January 16, 2009 10:17 PM PST
- Obviously the point has gone straight over your head. Microsoft's OS is a monopoly and Apple is not.
- Like this
-
- by mickeymjay January 17, 2009 6:45 AM PST
- Granted, Safari may be able to be completely removed, but that does not change the fact that it is still bundled with OS X. What other browser is bundled with OS X? Let me guess, no other brower. However, what EU wants is other browsers bundled with windows.
- Like this
-
- by Seaspray0 January 17, 2009 1:22 PM PST
- @t8. Go look up the definition of a monoply... when a company controls over 50% of a specific market. Now how much of the mp3 player market is controlled by apple's ipods? Whoops! Guess what? Apple is a monoply, too! The only reason the EU isn't screaming about it is because they are playing favorites.
- Like this
-
- by t8 January 17, 2009 3:02 PM PST
- To the comment above.
- Like this
-
- by mickeymjay January 18, 2009 6:53 AM PST
- Honestly, I feel Apple is abusing their market of music players. They are not using an standard for the music you download from them. I can not listen to them on my MP3 player. I would have to go purchase an IPod or listen through I-Tunes. So if the EU doesn't like how the Internet Explorer isn't using certain standards, then they should also look at Apple when it comes to their music download service.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 4 pages (224 Comments)How about Ipods, you are forced to use I tunes to access the divice or play DRM music on the device. Apple sues anyone who makes product that work with the device. Nobody stops or complains.
Car manufactures, ever try and order a car w/o a radio. I think the radio that comes with my car sucks, I find a better radio but I have to kee the unit in the trunck as it is tied into the cars electronics. I then have to pay for another radio and have it installed. I have no chioce.
When I buy an OS expect as much functionality as I can get for the money I spend.
Just my opinion.
People have been whining about that for years: "IE shouldn't be so locked to the OS! It should be removable!" Thing is.... IE uses most of the components of..... Windows Explorer! So of course it is going to have to be an integral part of the OS, so that the same checks that are done with Windows Explorer are done with IE.
Also look how much of the market share IE has lost. With time, there will be a level playing field when it comes to browsers. Also, Computer Manufactures (Dell, HP, Sony, ETC...) could also include a different brower if they choose to do it.
So I say to the EU, stop wasting tax payers money and move on.
I have no problem with Apple being a monopoly in portable music players. If they abuse that position, then the EU will come down on them too. The law is the law and it is there to protect us.