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

Edited July 24, 2009 by sted

[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.

Edited July 24, 2009 by SYNACK

[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).

Edited July 24, 2009 by SYNACK

[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.

[localzuk]

I think you're forgetting the whole thing about US and EU law on monopolies and being anti-competitive.

 

Microsoft was found to be a monopoly, both in the USA and in the EU. They were then found to be leveraging this monopoly in order to force their way into various markets, whilst destroying the alternatives by using secret API calls and various other means. This was shown to be happening in their handling of the whole Windows running on non-MS-DOS, with internet explorer, and again with media player.

 

The purpose of these actions against Microsoft is not to just punish them for their poor behaviour. It is to force them to change the way they operate, in order to prevent the end user from being screwed over.

 

They aren't turning to MS and saying 'the EU likes Opera and Winamp, you don't include these, therefore you're bad. Give us a billion euros.', they're saying 'your position of being the monopoly operating system provider in the EU is unique, and due to that position, your company has to behave in such a way so as to not stifle competition and choice. You have been found to be ignoring this responsibility several times. Give us a billion euros, and change your ways!'...

 

How is that anything buy good?

[torledo]

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.

 

well, if apple get above 10% 'pc' market share in the US and fair considerably better worldwide in terms of % of overall pc shipments, then the EU will doubtless take a look.

 

But as of now, they're behind the likes of Dell, HP and Toshiba in both US and worldwide market share.

 

Infact no-one stands out as having as dominant a market share in the PC market as microsoft has within the OS market, or to a lesser extent as intel has in the processor market.

[localzuk]

Can I just point out that I do think Apple should face an investigation regarding their ipod/itunes/blocking palm-pre thing. They do seem to have a monopoly when it comes to this area, and they do seem to be using that monopoly to force competitors out.

[Diello]

They aren't turning to MS and saying 'the EU likes Opera and Winamp, you don't include these, therefore you're bad. Give us a billion euros.', they're saying 'your position of being the monopoly operating system provider in the EU is unique, and due to that position, your company has to behave in such a way so as to not stifle competition and choice. You have been found to be ignoring this responsibility several times. Give us a billion euros, and change your ways!'...

 

How is that anything buy good?

 

This whole thing angers me so much! Since when did a "monopoly" equal "the most successful". The EU, and the US for that matter, basically say "if you're the most successful, you must help those that aren't to catch up with you"... sorry, this isn't a charity, it's a business, designed to make money for shareholders. If Opera was the most amazing web browser in history, then install with Windows or not, people would use it. Waving it right in peoples face isn't going to help it become a better browser, all that'll happen is someone with no knowledge of browsers will probably end up installing it, then wonder why it's not "working properly".

 

Have MS made some questionable decision in the past and stifled innovation, undoubtedly - Is not bundling other people's browsers with your OS anti-competitive? No, not really. If you DO want to make such a move, then that's fine, but make it across the industry, allowing Apple to bundle iTunes, Safari, and heck knows how many other apps should be stopped to, not because they're necessarily anti-competitive, but if a level playing field is what you want, then you can't have one rule for one, and one rule for another. Consumer choice is great, when it really is that, not when it's "beat on the successful company under a veil of legitimacy". What if I want to but a Mac have be able to choose Firefox as my browser?! It should be just as easy as Microsoft may well have to do.

 

This whole - Beat MS as the big evil, love Apple, they can do no wrong, and it's DIFFERENT - arguments is moronic.

[localzuk]

This whole thing angers me so much! Since when did a "monopoly" equal "the most successful". The EU, and the US for that matter, basically say "if you're the most successful, you must help those that aren't to catch up with you"... sorry, this isn't a charity, it's a business, designed to make money for shareholders. If Opera was the most amazing web browser in history, then install with Windows or not, people would use it. Waving it right in peoples face isn't going to help it become a better browser, all that'll happen is someone with no knowledge of browsers will probably end up installing it, then wonder why it's not "working properly".

 

Have MS made some questionable decision in the past and stifled innovation, undoubtedly - Is not bundling other people's browsers with your OS anti-competitive? No, not really. If you DO want to make such a move, then that's fine, but make it across the industry, allowing Apple to bundle iTunes, Safari, and heck knows how many other apps should be stopped to, not because they're necessarily anti-competitive, but if a level playing field is what you want, then you can't have one rule for one, and one rule for another. Consumer choice is great, when it really is that, not when it's "beat on the successful company under a veil of legitimacy". What if I want to but a Mac have be able to choose Firefox as my browser?! It should be just as easy as Microsoft may well have to do.

 

This whole - Beat MS as the big evil, love Apple, they can do no wrong, and it's DIFFERENT - arguments is moronic.

 

So you'd be happy if MS turned around and stopped those alternative software's from working with their OS? Or made it so that they would be eternally crippled, compared to their offering?

 

You are missing the point. Microsoft have a monopoly in the OS market. Fact. Because of this, they have a legal responsibility to promote competition (this is enshrined in US, UK and EU law! If you disagree with this law, campaign to have it changed). Microsoft have not been following their responsibilities.

 

It isn't the EU you've got a problem with - it's the laws. We vote these people in, so we can vote them out. However, I won't be voting against these laws...

[SYNACK]

So you'd be happy if MS turned around and stopped those alternative software's from working with their OS? Or made it so that they would be eternally crippled, compared to their offering?

 

??

But winamp and firefox do work with Windows, and instead of being crippled do manage to offer some features that the Windows embedded solutions don't. I don't think that they would purposfully stop the code from running, not now.

 

There is a certain user benifit of having an integrated system as well. If you make your content to work with say MS media player then it should work on most systems easily. If you start adding dependencies here and there for every different codec under the sun you will end up with a confusing mess like linux which people are unwilling to develop certain types of content for. This because it is such a PITA to get all of the appropriate dependencies and APIs in the right place and order on anything more than one or two distributions.

 

Choice is a good thing but this is playing into the regulation for the stupid side of things, like the sunscreen thread. The government should not need to mandate bundling to make up for its own citizens skills deficiencies. This is all part of the nasty and continual slide into an idiocracy (a great, pressient movie).

Edited July 25, 2009 by SYNACK

[localzuk]

??

But winamp and firefox do work with Windows, and instead of being crippled do manage to offer some features that the Windows embedded solutions don't. I don't think that they would purposfully stop the code from running, not now.

 

Microsoft used secret API calls and similar for its own products. These abilities give it an unfair advantage over competition. (This was the ruling of the court btw...) It was ordered to release the details of these APIs and to release a version of Windows which didn't include Media Player (and was fined). It shuffled around on the first point, and ended up being fined again.

 

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case]European Union Microsoft competition case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

There is a certain user benifit of having an integrated system as well. If you make your content to work with say MS media player then it should work on most systems easily. If you start adding dependencies here and there for every different codec under the sun you will end up with a confusing mess like linux which people are unwilling to develop certain types of content for. This because it is such a PITA to get all of the appropriate dependencies and APIs in the right place and order on anything more than one or two distributions.

 

Sorry what? Linux is 1000 times easier to develop for because of its dependency system. You need libc6? include it and add that requirement to your debian package or rpm package. With Windows, you can only use what MS say you can use to interface with the OS. This is the problem that the EU had.

 

Choice is a good thing but this is playing into the regulation for the stupid side of things, like the sunscreen thread. The government should not need to mandate bundling to make up for its own citizens skills deficiencies. This is all part of the nasty and continual slide into an idiocracy (a great, pressient movie).

 

No, it isn't. Microsoft have a monopoly. That monopoly isn't going to go anywhere soon (no matter what advocates of linux say), and as such MS can't simply do whatever it wants.

[torledo]

all that'll happen is someone with no knowledge of browsers will probably end up just end up using IE7 or IE8

.

 

corrected for you.

 

This whole - Beat MS as the big evil, love Apple, they can do no wrong, and it's DIFFERENT - arguments is moronic.

 

I think apple should be doing out of choice what microsoft are doing. Give the user a choice within the operating system for various applications, and the capability for the user to select the option to remove osx bundled apps if they chose. absolutely.

 

It should be beholden on any OS provider to not lock out choice by design. I think everyone would agree, it's how far they choose [or are forced] to facilitate that end user choice that's debated.

 

IT's why i think some people get fed up with some decisions by bodies like the EU, because in their bid to protect consumers you can end up with counter-intuitive end results.

[SYNACK]

Microsoft used secret API calls and similar for its own products. These abilities give it an unfair advantage over competition. (This was the ruling of the court btw...) It was ordered to release the details of these APIs and to release a version of Windows which didn't include Media Player (and was fined). It shuffled around on the first point, and ended up being fined again.

 

European Union Microsoft competition case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

 

It made their stuff go faster but did not break the other stuff, it still worked fine and possibly more securely because of it. I agreed earlier that this was worthy of being investigated and acted upon. A disagree that media player should have been removed though. The EU will not be happy untill you just get a command prompt with windows so that it does not tread on any EU developers toes. Windows PE is probably the next version that the EU will demand.

 

Sorry what? Linux is 1000 times easier to develop for because of its dependency system. You need libc6? include it and add that requirement to your debian package or rpm package. With Windows, you can only use what MS say you can use to interface with the OS. This is the problem that the EU had.

 

Which distribution? writing a full on media app for linux is like writing a single new bible for every religion on earth. Media is handled by different subsystems in different distributions, there are also different incompatible formats for installers, some are good, others are laughable. If you need to spend 90% of your design time allowing for all of these variables then how much time do you have to actually program the app.

 

Lots of the education based stuff that the teachers seem to like are built in the simplest most cross platform tools avalible to them at the time. Is there a simple media framework that can be developed in that will actually work on the large majority of distributions?

 

Linux can be good I am sure but it is by no means the pinical of achivement and the best at everything. Sometimes to hit a nail the easiets way is to use a hammer.

 

No, it isn't. Microsoft have a monopoly. That monopoly isn't going to go anywhere soon (no matter what advocates of linux say), and as such MS can't simply do whatever it wants.

 

So you are saying that this is ok and will not lead to more idiot tax being applied because for the moment MS can stand up to them? If the govenrment can't get its citizens up to speed with installing a browser then they should offload that onto the company. I have yet to hear of a government going after car companies because its citizens can't imediatly drive them without training.

 

The EU already has one of the highest uptakes of non MS browsers, can they not be trusted to keep going on this trend. Is MS stuff really so addictive that people can't possibly use anything else and if it is that good won't people just keep using it. Corporate IT uses IE mostly because of its ease of managment and integration (+ legacy apps for some). Where is the official MSI and adm/admx templates for Opera or Firefox (not CTP). If they are so much better and so desperate to get into the Office then why have they not even made this effort. Litigation is the fallback of those who do not want to compete. Laws infact are specificaly designed to limit or eradicate conflict/compotition for the sake of peace at variable costs.

Edited July 25, 2009 by SYNACK

[mbedford]

A big thanks goes out to the EU. Once again they have stepped in and made a decision where one wasn't required.

 

Has anyone ever thought, damn my Windows install has IE with it, what will I do?

 

Or to simplify it further. You can buy a different car stereo to the one you have pre built into your car, are the EU going to force ford to stop putting ford stereo's in their new cars and instead replace it with a sticker saying "You could have a ford stereo or you could have one of these?" I dont think so!

 

Overpaid, underworked idiots, and we think that the UK government is bad!!