Google wants to join EU case against Microsoft
Google wants to help the European Commission prove antitrust charges against Microsoft related to the software giant's dominance of the Web browser market.
The Web search giant, which recently released its Chrome Web browser, announced Tuesday that it is applying to be a "third party" in the European proceedings, which will entitle it to receive access to confidential documents in the case and the ability to voice objections. Sundar Pichai, a Google vice president for product management, explained the company's reasoning in a company blog:
Google believes that the browser market is still largely uncompetitive, which holds back innovation for users. This is because Internet Explorer is tied to Microsoft's dominant computer operating system, giving it an unfair advantage over other browsers. Compare this to the mobile market, where Microsoft cannot tie Internet Explorer to a dominant operating system, and its browser therefore has a much lower usage. The value of competition for users (even in the limited form we see today) is clear: tabbed browsing, faster downloads, private browsing features, and more.
The request follows the EU's recent decision to grant third-party access to Mozilla, the organization behind the popular Firefox browser. Mitchell Baker, Mozilla's chair, voiced concerns similar to Google's--that tying IE to the Windows operating system harms competition for Web browsers and reduces consumer choice.
The Commission, which is the European Union's executive arm, formally put Microsoft on notice in mid-January, objecting to the bundling of the Internet Explorer browser with the Windows operating system. The Commission's decision, which initially stemmed from a complaint filed by rival browser maker Opera, gave Microsoft two months to respond to the allegations, and also opened the case up to third-party involvement.
Microsoft's share of the browser market has been declining steadily during the past year, largely due to Firefox's growing popularity. In January, IE controlled 67.55 percent of global browser market share, a drop of more than 7 percentage points in a year, according to Web metrics company Net Applications. Meanwhile, Firefox gained more than 3 percentage points to 21.53 percent.
Apple's Safari rounds out the top three with 8.29 percent of the browser market. Google's Chrome browser, launched in September 2008, has 1.12 percent of the market, having overtaken Opera in November. Opera's share of the market now stands at 0.7 percent.
This is not the first time Google and Microsoft have locked horns on antitrust issues. In 2006, the search giant expressed concern over Microsoft embedding Web search functionality into its Vista operating system. Microsoft ultimately agreed to make changes to the desktop search feature to head off a further antitrust battle with U.S. regulators.
Google also opposed Microsoft's failed bid to acquire Yahoo, saying it raised "troubling questions."
Microsoft recently opposed Google's proposed ad-sharing deal with Yahoo, which Google ultimately abandoned in the face of antitrust scrutiny.
Steven Musil is the night news editor at CNET News. Before joining CNET News in 2000, Steven spent 10 years at various Bay Area newspapers. E-mail Steven. 
google = microsoft - google is no better than microsoft.
Their WEB BROWSER is the open source thing, not the search engine!
Shame on you google!
You are no better than Microsoft!
Google doesn't really have a case here -- they've had a browser in the market for less than 6 months now. In fact it was a beta until mid-December. Based on 2 months data they're going to claim that IE bundling hurts them??
Their stake in the issue is clear -- better browser performance makes web apps more credible/feasible. Google is all about web apps. But if they play that game then they're essentially enhancing the definition of a browser as an 'API/framework' on top of which apps (web apps) run.
If you are a consumer and not a Microsoft employee, then you are your own worst enemy.
...in which case you cease to do business in Europe (or at least the EU portions of it).
It's pretty simple, really. If you're going to sell your product to people in a (to you) foreign sovereignty, they you get to eat the rules they set. The best you can do is appeal to the citizens of that sovereignty... if they'll bother listening, and if they can actually do anything about it.
MS can and will comply with EU laws -- they don't have an option and you sqawking about it doesn't change that. We (regular folks) can still ***** and moan at the EC for being morons on this particular issue, if that's how we feel.
Read my comments and you'll realize that's exactly what I said. Stop feeling so smug with your silly "like it or lump it" line. Nobody is suggesting MS has any option that includes breaking EU laws.
Seriously.. how do you come up with that stuff sometimes??
It's probably accurate to say that both companies are locked in a fight to the finish (or at least see themselves as being in such a fight). Whoever wins the outcome can only be good for us. I doubt you'd succeed in getting either of them to back off -- they simply don't have the mindset to do that.
MS got into trouble because of how it does business. While I disagree with a lot of how Google does business, the basics of how its products get distributed isn't among the areas which are disagreeable.
Google has already been found guilty of bundling forced application installations with Google Earth. If you have Google Earth, you get their auto updater which installs *all* the Google apps currently available without your consent or control. You have no way to prevent it outside of uninstalling Google Earth entirely.
It's getting to be worse than iTunes for bundling/slipstream installs. :/
Maybe because consumers realize that anitrust laws are supposed to protect them, not companies.
Maybe consumers also realize that they need IE in order to get those other browsers.
Maybe the EU wants MS to pre-install rival browsers. Who is going to test them? Who is going to patch them? Microsoft? Try telling a large enterprise customer that they are getting a bag full of browsers along with their OS. That makes no sense. Besides, OEMs like Dell are free to put whatever they want on the desktop after MS gives them the release bits.
By the way Google, IE mobile is only available on Windows Mobile. How many browsers run on the iPhone or Android besides the one it came with? Not sure what point they are trying to make here.
This entire case is a huge waste of time and money.
you're the idiot-drinking-kool-aid
Yes Microsoft has done much against all of us personally.
They charge us way to much for Windows which gives us viruses and is forced on us even if we don't want it. (Windows is now a third to half the cost of a computer) and try buying a computer without Windows, (just the computer). Microsoft tax aside, Microsoft have cost Web development millions if not billions in extra costs because they have to develop to Web standards AND IE. Trust me I am a web developer and you always have to allow quite a bit of extra time to circumnavigate IE's incompatibility with standard code. They only do this in the hope that people will program to their browser and in doing so it will break or look bad in the other browsers.
It is ignorance to allow a company to continue to injure consumers and developers the way Microsoft has and is doing.
Microsoft is a for profit company, dont want to use their product dont buy it.
Microsoft is as pure American capitalist company there is.
You sir seem sociaist so I can understand your position. But to come in and turn your political ideals against a for profit company is like Don Quioxte tilting against another windmill. A threat does not exist there.
Every anti-trust measure as been met or exceeded by Microsoft. So where is the complaint here.
Google should be ashamed to associate with such an obvious attempt to achieve progress through government regulation and intervention. This does nothing to help their cause except to alienate a public that is sick and tired of seeing American companies pummeled abroad by governments that seem delighted to line their pockets with millions of dollars of hard earned money.
Every worker in Google should be petitioning their bosses to reverse this decision immediately. Employees want to be able to stand with their heads held high and proudly announce their achievements without having the results twisted by negative perceptions of inappropriate behavior by greedy senior executives.
We have seen enough of this behavior recently by bank executives, automotive executives, and Wall street executives. It's time to get back to earning what we achieve the old fashion way through superior education, and impeccable execution. Thats how you put the pride in your heart and the money in your pocket.
Google- see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil... unless we can gain market share. It's a crying shame.
Because IE is already installed, many people will just use that to browse the internet. If they had to make a choice up front, they might actually realize that there are much better choices for the majority of sites and IE might just have to start competing with standards and performance instead of lock-in.
Your argument is flawed. It's based upon the idea that because there is any software on the computer other than the files required to operate the computer, your locked in. The fact that I have 4 browsers and can easily obtain them in seconds with high speed internet access at any time I want with a couple of clicks proves the exact opposite, there is no such thing as a lock in.
I also don't by this argument that because they have been convicted of being a monopolist in this country that it becomes open season on Microsoft's OS world wide. It now appears that any company on the face of the planet offering any competitive application from apps that are included with the OS can go crying to their government about monopoly abuse and use the convenient excuse of "leveling the playing field" as justification for forcing removal of apps. Ultimately over time we will wind up having every single app removed that comes with it.
I know that there are some that would see that as some kind of victory. But if they could just pull back from their hatred of Microsoft for just one moment they would see that the big loser is everyone, including those with all that hatred built up inside.
Have you noticed that the copies of Windows that the Media Player has been removed from just sit on the shelves collecting dust overseas. That's because people "want" those applications included! I rest my case.
So would many of their security woes.
There is still the fact that there are a lot of people that dont know computers like you or I. And there are a lot of people that dont know there is something better out there. but im still Split on the EU doing this. People should at least be show there is something else out there, because there are a lot that just dont.
Mr. Pot? I'd like you to meet Mister GoogleKettle.
The joining of the browser suit against Microsoft in EU finally signals the coming of Google as any other
big biz organisation.
Imagine if this were a track-n-field event and every athlete was told that they could not run faster then their competition.. that's pretty much what the EU tries to do.
It just gives the other "athletes" the chance to bring up the accusations and tends to be a bit more aggressive sometimes.
My Search Engine Google
My Computer a Mac
The fact that Microcraps monopoly does not affect me......Priceless
Run nmap again google servers, it is not Ubuntu.
Seriously, the problem is that IE is required for the OS to operate which is a technologically insane thing to do.
So many billions lost in court and security issues would not be necessary if they took the rational step of pulling IE out of the OS and back into application land where it belongs.
- by sting7k February 25, 2009 5:37 AM PST
- Google being allowed into this is really a joke, they are barely in the browser market. To top it off, they have a vested interest because their browser is only on WINDOWS. Don't let Google try to fool you, IE's share has dropped a lot. Firefox has forced them to move, Google is just jealous that they aren't in the browser game so they want to get in on the Microsoft hate fest.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by rapier1 February 25, 2009 11:57 AM PST
- My feeling is that the end result of this is that they'll want MS to unbundle the browser like they forced it to unbundle the media player. Alternatively, they could require that MS include links to alternative browsers. I don't see the point behind it really. It doesn't seem like this is reducing competition if one considers that users have a large number of alternatives that are easily downloaded and installed. The statistics indicate that MS is losing browser share as well - which doesn't seem like the hallmark of an entrenched monopoly either.
- Like this
-
- by pithenumber February 28, 2009 12:36 PM PST
- @rapier
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (74 Comments)If Mozilla, Opera, Google, and who ever else wants to give people more choice in browsers then they should get off their butts and get PC makers to start installing their browsers on new PCs. Think about it, they deal with HP, Dell, Acer, IBM, and who ever directly. They already load up their PCs with tons of crap ware so get them to put on their browsers as well. Basically they don't want to do any work for themselves, they want someone to force Microsoft to stop bundling IE.
One question, if IE wasn't included in Windows how would anyone even be able to download Firefox, Chrome, Opera, etc?
MS won't unbundle IE, if they made an IEless version, no one would buy it
like when they unbundled media player