Microsoft in new EU Browser Offer

[Gatt]

Microsoft has made a new proposal to European competition regulators that it hopes will end their row over the firm's Internet Explorer web browser.
It proposes that European buyers of its new Windows 7 operating system will be offered a list of potential browsers when they first install the software.

BBC NEWS | Business | Microsoft in new EU browser offer

[mossj]

Would love to be able to install all the browser including previous versions.

[Geoff]

This isn't an 'offer' this is MS complying with the EU conditions.

EU may mandate multiple browser bundling with new PCs - Ars Technica

Presumably it doesn't want any more fines or a delay of Win7 shipping in Europe.

[Simcfc73]

Probably MS trying to stop payrolling the biggest Quango in history. They'll probably fine then for only installing one version of solitaire next.

Apple must be so squeaky clean.... or Brussells gets nice shiney macs every year for a discount.

[CyberNerd]

It is another good move by the EU. It levels the playing field. If MS had their way they would have forced a the internet to be only compatible with their software. This should have happened years ago - in the IE6 days when MS stopped innovating the browser.

[sted]

i honestly dont see the point of all this most people who want to use say firefox for instance will anyway and its always useful to have 2 browsers on a computer as some things just dont look right in some.

If the EU do this to ms shouldn't apple be made to play by the same rules and remove safari from osx and possibly the iphone as well (iirc it runs a reasonable sized kernel and i would think firefox is runable on it if apple would allow it) or are they just picking on teh easy target rather than consistently applying the rules to everyone

even more to the point of monopoly would be apple installing itunes on all their kit and making it only work with their devices also making it hard to sign up to get basic data (album covers etc) without giving a credit card number

[Gatt]

So will the EU force Apple to provide Firefox as well as Safari on their Systems?
And Linux is mainly Firefox, Konqueror if KDE is installed..

I bet they wont...

[CyberNerd]

So will the EU force Apple to provide Firefox as well as Safari on their Systems?

rather depends on whether somebody makes a complaint about apple. Since they don't have a monopoly on the telephone or desktop market any complaint is unlikely to be upheld

And Linux is mainly Firefox, Konqueror if KDE is installed..

linux isn't a distruibution

[SYNACK]

In other news EU legislates hp to give away free Macs with every purchase to deal with 'unfair' PC market share. I do agree that MS needed a bit of a kick but this is just stupid.

There again I have never been to fond of the legislative BS that comes out of the EU. I have yet to thank them propperly for embedding a max 10 year lifespan (tin wiskers) on any electronics thanks to RoHS anti-lead insanity. Yes lead is poisonous, stop licking circut boards and legislate its disposal not device creation.

[CyberNerd]

. I do agree that MS needed a bit of a kick but this is just stupid.

A kick! This has been going on since 1998. The EU are just doing what the US government couldn't

United States v. Microsoft was a set of consolidated civil actions filed against Microsoft Corporation on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states. Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor. The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system sales and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this unfairly restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturer (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct.

United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[localzuk]

Microsoft are a convicted monopolist, and so far have not shown any sign of change, so why should the EU stop their actions against them?

If you have a problem with Apple and a 'monopoly' held by them, complain to the EU.

[webman]

Apple's share of the computing market is relatively small in comparison to Microsoft's monopoly share...

[SYNACK]

A kick! This has been going on since 1998. The EU are just doing what the US government couldn't

This is not about the US governments obvious deficiencies but rather more about the scale and type of punishment. The kick that I was reffering to is more along the lines of removing the artificial barriers of entry for other browsers to be included with OEM computers. This is outright demanding the install of a chunk of software on the machine. There was another government doing that - who was it again, oh thats right China.

In the EU it is not enough to punnish by punitive measures (fines) it must also override the rights of the pc vendors. So it may be a little dodgy that they are incentivised to have the MS browser pride of place and that google invests in having their toolbar bundled but everyone is now on the same feild. It may not be right but it lowers the end cost to the user thanks to 'sponsership' of the pc with c**pware (google toolbar, etc.).

Now the vendors must add another layer of software and not get paid for it while other companies have to. This is state welfare for poor applications.

On to the ever charming and uniquely written wikipedia, here even though it is not the issue I must address the language. Lets just take it as source credibility for future discussions

It was further alleged that this unfairly restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store.

So they unfairly stoped other browsers from running on Windows, sure sounds fair enough. Oh wait, it did run, and their possible market was larger due to the success of the platform. But they were slow to download and had Microsoft been controlling the accessability of high speed internet or the file sizes of the compeditors then this might constitute a point. From the sentence above it also appears that Microsoft somehow crippled its buyers making them unable to visit a store to buy anything. They seemed to manage alright when they went and brought the computer in the first place. Its not like there were no other sucessful programs that were purchased and used on a MS platform. Photoshop, Doom, Wordperfect for Windows. All of these had a form of limited competition embedded in the platform but because they were definitavly better they succeeded (to differing degrees).

Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturer (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct.

Here comes the bit which they actually needed a kick over, the fact that they manuputated their OS code to make the browser go better was a good thing! The bad thing was that they did not make this avalible through the API, worse if they activly slowed the other code. The restrictive agreements are also an area they needed a kicking for even though initially it probably saved us all from more c**pware than we could imagine.

I think the worst of their crimes however was dropping the ball on development of the technology, competition - war in its purest form drives inovation forward. An absence of conflict does not nessisarily need to mean a stop to inovation though.

The above example of Wikipedias clumbsy use of language is one of the reasons that it should be frowned upon as a truly compelling source of definitave information.

Anyhow, back on topic I don't think that the EUs punishment ideas are overly helpful, it just instills unfairness in the other direction which rarely ever leads to balance. Additionally while they are strutting around attempting to mount an MS logo on a medievil pike other, possibly far worse offenders are walking free without concequence (not monopolistic, just plain evil).

[Simcfc73]

This is not about the US governments obvious deficiencies but rather more about the scale and type of punishment. The kick that I was reffering to is more along the lines of removing the artificial barriers of entry for other browsers to be included with OEM computers. This is outright demanding the install of a chunk of software on the machine. There was another government doing that - who was it again, oh thats right China.

In the EU it is not enough to punnish by punitive measures (fines) it must also override the rights of the pc vendors. So it may be a little dodgy that they are incentivised to have the MS browser pride of place and that google invests in having their toolbar bundled but everyone is now on the same feild. It may not be right but it lowers the end cost to the user thanks to 'sponsership' of the pc with c**pware (google toolbar, etc.).

Now the vendors must add another layer of software and not get paid for it while other companies have to. This is state welfare for poor applications.

On to the ever charming and uniquely written wikipedia, here even though it is not the issue I must address the language. Lets just take it as source credibility for future discussions



So they unfairly stoped other browsers from running on Windows, sure sounds fair enough. Oh wait, it did run, and their possible market was larger due to the success of the platform. But they were slow to download and had Microsoft been controlling the accessability of high speed internet or the file sizes of the compeditors then this might constitute a point. From the sentence above it also appears that Microsoft somehow crippled its buyers making them unable to visit a store to buy anything. They seemed to manage alright when they went and brought the computer in the first place. Its not like there were no other sucessful programs that were purchased and used on a MS platform. Photoshop, Doom, Wordperfect for Windows. All of these had a form of limited competition embedded in the platform but because they were definitavly better they succeeded (to differing degrees).


Here comes the bit which they actually needed a kick over, the fact that they manuputated their OS code to make the browser go better was a good thing! The bad thing was that they did not make this avalible through the API, worse if they activly slowed the other code. The restrictive agreements are also an area they needed a kicking for even though initially it probably saved us all from more c**pware than we could imagine.

I think the worst of their crimes however was dropping the ball on development of the technology, competition - war in its purest form drives inovation forward. An absence of conflict does not nessisarily need to mean a stop to inovation though.

The above example of Wikipedias clumbsy use of language is one of the reasons that it should be frowned upon as a truly compelling source of definitave information.

Anyhow, back on topic I don't think that the EUs punishment ideas are overly helpful, it just instills unfairness in the other direction which rarely ever leads to balance. Additionally while they are strutting around attempting to mount an MS logo on a medievil pike other, possibly far worse offenders are walking free without concequence (not monopolistic, just plain evil).

Kinda funny that they are saying they manipulated their OS code to make IE work better but every test shows FF runs much better.... kind of a mute point really.... "MS you are charged with altering your OS to make IE run faster... even though it doesn't"

Bet the same judge does these trials that does the Gerrard one.

[CyberNerd]

I don't understand why you think that something that gives customers more choice and more freedom is a bad thing!
Microsoft cannot be trusted to regulate themselves, and the only way to do it is by forcing them to give a choice of browser, media player etc so they cannot corner every market they enter.
I strongly believe that regulation is the only way to prevent the monopolistic abuse that MS have become so infamous for.