Comments on: Redmond roundup: Company files EU response
Also: Microsoft rehires Cyrus Krohn, a former "Softie" who had been with Yahoo and the Republican National Committee. And it's talking Tellme for Windows Mobile.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About Beyond Binary
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.
Beyond Binary is a look at how technology is changing our lives and the people behind all that life-changing stuff, with an extra emphasis on that which emanates from Redmond, Wash.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Beyond Binary topics
Binary Bits
Follow Ina on Twitter (Twitter name: InaFried)
Another brilliant decision. Why couldn't MS get the director of the Democratic National Committee eCampaign division? Or did that guy go to Google?
2) You don't actually need the browser to download OS and application updates. Not with any recent OS at least.
3) The amount of money the EU can get from MS is trivial in comparison to their budget. The EU just has a very different idea regarding business practices than the US. In some ways maybe its better but it other ways it can be argued as being worse. No one is forcing MS to sell their products in the EU but its a big enough market to make these sort of hassles a necessary part of doing business there.
And if you think this situation will only affect Microsoft, then guess again. Remember, Microsoft wasn't found guilty of anything over there. This is the EU stating that they are breaking their laws only. So you don't have to be found guilty of anything for them to do this to any company.
*shakes head*
MS latched onto the IBM monopoly, and took over their mantle of incompetence that hung over from the 70's and 80's. IBM was quite capable in the early days of computing, but they like MS got slothful and started producing crap. The PC was obsolete the day it shipped, but IBM had to introduce something to compete in the emerging microcomputer market. They leveraged their near-monopoly status to push the overpriced PC on businesses who would have gone with another microcomputer system and demanded IBM to interoperate instead. MS then used their incumbency to stifle innovation from other sources and ensure interoperability was not easily achievable, including sabatoging numerous standards processes (Open XML is only the most recent example, and more subtle than previous attempts). Whenever they included a standard such as the BSD sockets API or kerberos in windows, they ensured that they broke compatibility (hence why I can compile the same tcp/ip sockets code on bsd, linux, mac, solaris, etc, but not on windows without a ton of #ifdef's). Same goes for Java.
So, while one may not like the government tampering with markets, it is equally bad for a big business to tamper with the free market. MS is not capitalist. They are still as close to a monopoly as you can get, although it is crumbling. Capitalism is when linux, mac, bsd, etc can compete equally in the market without being stifled or sabatoged by MS. Additionally, MS has shown that it is willing to use legal extortion and slander (such as the FAT patents) to stifle competition. A number of these patents have significant prior art and would not hold up if reviewed by a qualified examiner (sadly lacking in the patent office). If a mechanical engineer could do the same for their field as some companies do for software, then they could patent retrofitting air conditioner to a model-t.
Note: If you think linux or any os is insufficient because it can't play windows games or run MS office, do not reply. You are totally unqualified, do not understand what an API is, don't understand any concepts of computer science, software engineering, or programming beyond visual basic or .NET. You also don't understand the anti-competitive and anti-standards sabotage MS undertook during the 90's. (i.e. OpenGL) Equally, if you think Linux is harder to use, you either haven't used a modern distro, or are biased due to being ingrained into the windows way of doing things. That is understandable, but remember, someone who is used to driving a stick shift may not immediately see an automatic transmission as being easier to use. So goes the same for software.
All this from a complaint from a company that offers a sub standard browser and can't find people to use it. Funny that I have never heard a Microsoft customer making a complaint that Windows doesn't have multiple browsers included init O/S. If the EU is so concerned, they should wrote their own O/S and include every browser known to man in it. Until then Microsoft is the main supplier of an O/S in europe, and if they don't like the product let them ban it and see what happens. People will buy balck market copies is what will happen. I think Microsoft should not pay any fines to the EU and tell them to stick their charges where the sun don't shine, Kinda reminds me of whythe United states of America came started as a country. Someone across the ocean was trying to dictate everything and trying to suck all the profit out of the people on this side of the ocean.
What about Microsoft dumping the netbook market with cheap XP copies, against Linux?
Microsoft has a lot of explaining to do.
What about it? It isn't related to this story in any way. Looks like the only FUD being spread is by you.
"What about Microsoft dumping the netbook market with cheap XP copies, against Linux?"
Let's see... Linux was free and companies have chosen to include Windows instead, paying money for it instead of choosing the free product. That sounds like freedom of choice there to me. And even when Asus had both Linux and XP available on the same models, customers chose the XP version more. Again, that's the market in action. Just because it doesn't match what you want to have happen in your reality doesn't discount the fact that it's true.
"MIcrosoft has a lot of explaining to do."
And here it is: They produced an OS that OEM's chose to purchase and install instead of the free Linux alternative. I don't see how that is Microsoft's fault in any way. Perhaps you should be asking those netbook OEM's why they chose XP over Linux instead. That may be a far more useful question to address your concerns.
A dodgy patent, but one that would cost too much to fight in court.
The point this guy makes is that big bad Microsoft is doing the same thing that big bad EU is doing.
MS should stop selling windows there and watch them scream.
They would be lost if MS pulled their software from their shelves.
Every OS comes with browsers so why pick on MS? Because they have the most money, that's why.
Bunch of Retards over there.
Amen
Very interesting choice indeed.
Take a economics class.
Microsoft keeps Apple on its toes not Linux.
Without MS Apple would suck.
If your going to biased in every post then don't post.
Let the Europeans board the Concorde or the Airbus 380s on a return trip... come to the Americas and shop till they drop for whichever computer software products then need.
Just what on God's Greening Earth is Microsoft waiting for?
I'd call foul on that, but I see it entirely too often now even in the US for charities and other non-profit groups that exploit others in the name of good intentions.
Bleah. The EU had its day- time to retire it. Or at least get a new horse to beat- this one is dead.
Have you seen how other browsers are gaining marketshare?
I fail to see how MS including IE is any different then Apple including Safari.
Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS.
When you buy a new PC, you get Windows. It is actually illegal to bundle other products with that arrangement.
e.g, if they bundled a particular monitor with the OS, then most wouldn't buy a monitor. Likewise when they bundle IE, most stick to it. This is bad for consumers.
Yes other browsers are gaining ground, but if IE wasn't bundled, then it probably wouldn't be the dominant browser.
Also as a Web developer I have seen the abuse firsthand with IE being bundled. Microsoft create their own standards from the W3C. This means that code has to be written for 2 standards costing the probably billions of dollars in total extra development costs. Microsoft couldn't hurt the industry in this way if they had to truly compete because people want standards and non-standards wouldn't stand much of a chance in a truly competitive environment.
It is illegal to use a monopoly to gain another monopoly. To compete in another market you need to innovate, not manipulate.
The EU is doing the right thing for customers and competitors. Customers need companies that compete on innovation, and competitors need a fair chance and unbiased platform to build innovative products.
This is one of the reasons why the Web is so much richer than Windows. The Web is not owned by anyone, and anyone can compete and sell their wares.
Yes I can and do download other browsers, but most people don't. They stick to the default whatever that is.
It is a no brainer that a bundled product enjoys a huge advantage over a product that needs to be downloaded. I doubt that many wouldn't even know how to download another browser.
How happy would you be if your business was undercut by a monopoly that decided that a knock off of your product was given away to all your customers.
Bundling other people's ideas innovations is almost stealing when you have a monopoly, (90% of the OS market).
If Microsoft can get away with bundling the browser, then they will have a license to own any software market of their choosing if they decided to bundle it.
The reality is that all OSes include a browser. To insist MS not do the same simply because their product is more popular is simply trying to sabotage their product for the benefit of their competition. It's not consumer protection at all. And it never has been.
>> "Likewise, does Microsoft stop me from choosing my browser when I buy a new PC? Yes they do."
No they don't -- the OEM is free to install anything they want (or offer choices) - and this included browsers. If the OEM doesn't offer the option, it isn't MS's fault.
Browsers are basic functionality expected in a desktop OS. The EU is either letting it's power get to its head, or is just making a withdrawal from their ATM (or both).
What ever the answer, it should be highly entertaining to listen to ...
Lets hail the legions to shred their arguments.
Arthur
If that guy isn't paid by Micro$oft ... then I wanna know.
Hey, when have you got your next payday? Maybe you could should us a drink?
Promise, we won't make any derogatory remarks about you - harhar.
If you're a rabid MS-hater, you're fine, but if you have the temerity to defend MS your integrity gets called into question? That's BS..
Also some one correct me if I am wrong about this next part I am about to say. So why isn?t Apple getting sued for bundling safari so what they get excluded for being like 7% of the market share or something like that, and your telling me if in some parallel dimension you had to pay for Linux and it was bundled with only one browser that their would be facing a lawsuit against the developers for only putting that one browser on it?
It kind of seams like Microsoft is being discriminated against for holding the majority of the market share.
A MONOPOLISTIC situation is just not normal. It needs safeguarding from somebody. For some reason 98% of desktops are on Windows. This gives a HUGE and unfair competitive advantage on other companies that make software. And before sb says that life is not fair, please remember that IE has become such a dog because there is no competition. Even IE8 sucks because IE still holds a huge market share. So it is not only fair but also positive for us, the consumers, that at least some EU beurocrats have the balls to judge Microsoft.
And finally, before anyone says that you can just go and download any browser you want immediately after installation, please note that until windows 7 IE is part of windows and cannot be uninstalled. And the most obvious reason why in Win7 it will finally be completely removable is to be safe in case EU rules against Msft.
The sad thing is that US regulators seem to have forgotten that they can actually to some regulating. (remember Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, Bernard Madoff, Merrill Lynch, IndyMac Federal Bank, AIG, ING Group, Citigroup, General Motors, Chrysler, Bank of America...
Monopolies do occur in free markets. Economic theory does not say that a free market cannot have a monopoly. The *efficiency* of the free market reduces when there is a monopoly -- but that doesn't mean the market isn't functioning correctly.
You are correct that monopolies stifle competition (high entry barrier, economies of scale protect the incumbent) -- but that isn't necessarily the same as "an unfair advantage".
So the EU needs to be careful in determining what's fair and what's unfair here. The EU has decided that they want to enforce laws that promote market *efficiency* -- so regulating monopolies is fair game. But in this particular case, they've decided to go after something that is an integral feature of the product in question (just find one desktop OS that ships without a browser -- there isn't any). MS can't be gaining an artificial share in the browser market because they aren't in the browser market -- their browser is an integral part of their OS. All other browsers (that ship independent of an OS) are strictly after-market accessories.
With Linux, I have an automatic choice of at least two browsers already installed and no part of the running system is dependent on any one of these particular browsers being available. Even Safari could be removed altogether. With Windows, MS has been spending the last two releases (including 7) removing dependence on IE, rewriting Windows Update and so on but until XP at the earliest there has been no way for any vendor to not include IE. All this crap people have been writing about how "it's up to the vendors" is just that, crap. There's no way IE could be removed from XP without breaking essential functionality in the O/S.
Probably worth remembering that XP is still being sold in the EU.
You're misinterpreting my point:
- I am NOT saying that IE is an integral part of the OS from an engineering standpoint (it may or may not be in the past/present/future -- but that is just an engineering detail)
- I AM saying that the browser *feature* is an integral part of a *consumer* OS.
Windows Update in XP specifically requires Internet Explorer. Not Trident, the rendering engine, the whole browser.
Dhavleak: That was deliberate.
No, you haven't :)
You (customer / end user or OEM) can install any number of browsers, set them as default, and that is sufficient. Plenty of OS infrastructure is not pluggable / replaceable. In this case, it makes sense for it to be replaceable by a 3rd party add-on, and it is. That's all you need. Expecting MS to ship somebody else's browser (in addition) thereby taking responsibility (at least partially) for the quality of their code, security patching etc. makes absolutely no sense.
Computer Manufactuter. Look it up. Microsoft don't qualify as one.
It's clear to see why you don't think I've addressed anything. You're not reading what I've written.
Do a reading comprehension course. Then re-read my comments. Then reply to what I have written, not some made-up version that only exists in your head.
>>> I said nothing about MS bundling anything.
You're objecting to IE (or at least the trident engine) being uninstallable. Big difference.
>>> Computer Manufactuter. Look it up. Microsoft don't qualify as one.
And your point is?
>>> It's clear to see why you don't think I've addressed anything. You're not reading what I've written.
And your point is?
>> Do a reading comprehension course. Then re-read my comments. Then reply to what I have written, not some made-up version that only exists in your head.
Another rant. Your point is?
What do you mean MS is not in the browser market. Bill Gates himself attacked Netscape (back in the day) by reforming the whole company's existence to create a web browser for free. The fact that IE has been up until Vista part of the OS is not a coincidence. It is 100% deliberate and it wants everyone like you to get confused. By integrating to the OS they can now say: "Look, every OS needs some kind of HTML rendering core abilities. In Windows it is IE. So shut up, and install and use any browser you like if you don't like IE".
In the last quoted sentence now replace the word "IE" WITH ANYTHING YOU LIKE e.g. "Windows Firewall", "Windows Live One Care", "Windows Desktop Search", "Windows Partitioner", "Virtual PC (so that you can run XP apps inside newer win-versions". This logic that you embrace positions Microsoft in a total competitive advantage on the competition. They have a headlock to all the others.
IE8 should NOT be an integral part of the OS. This doesn't mean that Windows should stay stagnant and deliver no innovation just because some 3-person company decided to make an app that would some future day make sense to be part of the OS. What MS seems to be doing is the complete opposite of this. They let the start ups and innovators bite the bullet, risk e.t.c. and make an ecosystem with their app and then Microsoft just decides to take the newly already proven concept and make a part of the OS. That's called FREE RnD for MS in the most kind of words.
Somebody has to stand up and check all those MS tactics and strategies. For now our only hope is the EU. Admit it.
There are 2 suggested alternatives for MS's current bundling of IE. (1) MS is forbidden from bundling any browser. (2) MS is forced to bundle more than one browser.
Extend option (1) to the things you point out. Result -- no browser, no firewall, no AV, no desktop search, no partitioning utility, no virtual PC etc. etc.
Extend option (2) to the things you point out. Result -- multiple browsers by default, multiple firewalls by default, multiple desktop search utilities by default, and so on..
I mean, if we want to cripple MS at any cost, why even bother with justifications for the regulatory actions? Why not just state, out in the open, that we'll take any regulation that cripples MS and we don't really care about whether it makes sense or not?
>>> IE8 should NOT be an integral part of the OS.
Why not? No customer would buy a computer that didn't have a browser installed. OEMs know that 100% of their customers want a browser, so they might as well have one pre-installed in the OS -- anything else is an unnecessary cost for them. And if the OEM's customers are really clamoring for a different default browser, the OEM has the option of offering them that choice and preinstalling it if the customer selected it. The customer has the option of installing more browsers / changing the default browser at any point. There are no artificial restrictions in place at any point here.
>>> That's unlikely to happen, Dhavleak claims to be neutral while uncritically regurgitating the MS party line. It's like trying to get an honest answer from a politician.
Classic stuff!
1) I wouldn't bother making a claim like that -- I'm just a random dude on the interweb - so what's the point?
2) Anyone making a point in MS's favor gets their 'neutrality' called into question, but anyone panning it is always neutral/open-minded? How does that work??
2) I have no problem with people making points in Microsoft's favour when they're based on truth and not the crap you come out with.
So you claim, my MS-hating friend. So you claim.
- by everydaypanos May 7, 2009 7:07 AM PDT
- @dhavleak
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(60 Comments)Oh great. You take the subject and totally take it on your side. I said many more things than just what MS should do. I said WHAT ABOUT OTHER STARTUPS/INNOVATORS? I said what ABOUT US, the customers?
PLEASE SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE FIRST question above...
... and do not just go to the cliche "Box 1 is no browser bundled = no innovation /// Box 2 is bundle stuff so that the customer will be happy because what they really put in is what he really wants".
There are like 1000 alternatives and different flavors to the above 2. I say bundle all you like but when someone like Real Inc, Mozilla, McAfee e.t.c. comes with an argument against some MS latest addition to the OS why should we just say: "Oh I am sorry. Microsoft wants really our best, and the American regulators really agree with that, so please let it go". We should have a trial. Fair if possible.
EU is the regulator of a 450 million economy and NO company, no matter how big or small it is, should even THINK that every kind of control and regulating is really coming out for their heads on a plate.
The global scene is increasingly becoming more diverse. Do you really think that because some US bureaucrats think that MS is a darling, no one else should really have a say on that? Especially when they are also customers?
Over.