View Full Version : Microsoft in the dock again ??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7834792.stm
Is this really an abuse of their dominant position ?? Dare I say that I have some smypathy for them. I think if you wan't basic funtionallity out of the box and you are not tech or net savvy then IE offers a sollution. If you want more then there is of course Firefox, Opera, Safari & Chrome.
I must be missing something me thinks
Streeteh
19-01-2009, 13:47
Extra money in the EUs pocket is all i can see as an adjenda. This act doesn't have the consumers interest in mind at all; most consumers want, no actually, need an internet browser chosen for them as standard, they would be lost without it.
Out of curiosity, whats the difference between this and Apple including Safari within OSX? Or the inclusion of a certain brand of CD player in a car (if we're going to get picky about it)?
NokkonWud
19-01-2009, 13:55
If Microsoft DIDN'T offer an Internet package out of the box with Windows then there would be more complaints. Also, how are you supposed to get Chrome/Firefox/Opera/Safari etc.. without having the application available to you to download them.
If I'm getting Windows without a web browser I'd be very annoyed.
As Streeteh says, seems like Microsoft is an easy target, Apple don't get anything negative for including Safari, nor did Sony for forcing people into ATRAC on their players.
To be fair, at the end of the day, it is anti competitive in so much as IE has a huge head start over the other browsers.
It wouldn't be entirely difficult for them to remove it and present a choice on install with a rudimentary downloader. Windows 7 is a good example here with it's Anti-Virus suggestion that lets you pick from Kaspersky/Norton/AVG when you first install. Do that with IE, Firefox, Opera and Safari or something, with a brief description of each then you've instantly levelled the playing field and no one is left without any functionality.
The trouble is, the same can be said of pretty much anything Microsoft bundle, WMP, WMM, games, etc. etc. and where do you draw the line? Keep doing it everytime some competing company complains?
It's a tough one to call IMO.
The Apple/Sony examples are different because they are/were not in such a massive position of market dominance as Microsoft is with Windows. You can hardly accuse them of abusing their position as a monopoly when they don't even have one :p
They should remove it from the software, then sell it for £5 next to the OS in the shops.
People then will have no choice but to buy it if they want to get online............
The EU is stupid, you can't get online without a browser, catch 22, next thing they say is they need to get rid of the calculator because it harm sales of the real ones, or get rid of the OS all together because it harms all the others too.
People do have choices, they can get a Mac. You can't sue MS for the public's stupidity of not knowing how to download Firefox or Google Chrome.
You don't need a browser in the sense of IE though, just to get online basically. It would be perfectly possible to allow a download choice through a Windows Update style system like in the Windows 7 beta.
NokkonWud
19-01-2009, 15:26
The Apple/Sony examples are different because they are/were not in such a massive position of market dominance as Microsoft is with Windows. You can hardly accuse them of abusing their position as a monopoly when they don't even have one :p
Not at all, OSX is the only option on the millions of Macs out there and every single one of them come with Safari. All Macs come with Safari, Microsoft have always included Internet Explorer, why should they change, Microsoft worked hard to make their OS platform the standard.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like Internet Explorer... really don't like it, but if all these other companies want to complain they should have worked as hard as Microsoft. It would be worse if Windows didn't allow an alternate browser, but it does. It's up to those other developers to get their word out. To the best of my knowledge Firefox already has a rather large market share of Internet browsers as it is, so I don't see what the problem is.
Apple are not and do not have anything close to a monopoly in the computer market, trying to suggest otherwise is just silly. When Apple are dominating the home computer market on the scale Microsoft do, then you have an argument.
At the end of the day, it is anti competitive and they are using their dominance of the OS market to lever an unfair advantage in another market.
Frankly, i'd be far more worried if we were to let companies in similar position have complete free reign as it would be very quick to descend into a completely unchecked monopolistic economy that will do no one any good.
As a vague analogy, if you were trying to get people to use an XBox 360 (assuming everything was free) and I was allowed to go around and give every single person in your target market a PS3 first and you had to rely on them coming to you to get a 360, you probably wouldn't deem it very fair would you?
The trouble is, the same can be said of pretty much anything Microsoft bundle, WMP, WMM, games, etc. etc. and where do you draw the line?
It did happen with WMP dont forget, and in Europe we have the 'N' versions of Vista and XP which come without media player (and KN in Korea which is also sans Live Messenger iirc).
I'm with divine really, it's not clear cut, and it is very difficult to balance MS's needs (to deliver the end user experience it wants - whatever motives they may be attached to), and the need to stay competitive.
I wonder if the EU really needs to do anything at the moment. Despite the market advantage Windows give them, IE's share is falling pretty steadily in recent times.
The only work around I can think of is if they have some option to include it in the install process. Iirc Windows 98 had the option to install some of the features that would probably be bundled as standard nowadays.
What's the alternative ?? No browser installed at all so how are users supposed to get on line to download an alternative browser
Microsoft provide IE as hard media free of charge ?? Well why should they incur the cost. Not to mention the environmental impact on producing the hard media.
MS bundle other browsers as an option at install. Would they not be liable for further litigation if they bundled browser X, Y & Z but didn't support them
Undoubtedly Microsoft is in a dominant market position but I can't see much wrong with what we as consumers have at the moment. We all DO have the choice of what browser we use. Whether we choose to use other or know how to use them is a different matter.
What next, class A law suits for mail clients being bundled or Messenger services such as MSN ??
I wonder if the EU really needs to do anything at the moment. Despite the market advantage Windows give them, IE's share is falling pretty steadily in recent times.
This is the crux. I don't think the EU really needs to intervene at the moment but what they are saying is true.
Supplying a product to every single person in the target market before any other competing product even has a chance to be mentioned can never be anything other than anti-competitive and an abuse of a position of dominance in another market.
Two words: Cash Cow
I will be utterly shocked if the EU don't hand down a fine of at least €1bn. That's the way the EU seems to work these days.
There are two obvious competitive disadvantages that other browsers have of course.
Firstly, many consumers will just go 'I already have a browser, why do I need another?' Without knowing (or caring) that better options exist.
Secondly, many of the IE components are so embedded into the OS that most of IE is loaded into memory whether you use it or not. The net result is that IE tends to load much faster than other browsers.
Does this give the right for the EU to rape and pillage Microsoft's coffers - again? No way in hell.
A Place of Light
19-01-2009, 19:03
To be fair, at the end of the day, it is anti competitive in so much as IE has a huge head start over the other browsers.
Only due to the huge amount of work Msoft put into it.
Back in the day, Netscape Navigator was streets ahead of IE.....and nobody complained about IE being bundled back then.
Mozilla and Opera could employ ten million people busting their nuts for 50 years and that wouldn't change the fact that IE has an advantage they could never hope to compete with due to Microsoft's dominance in a separate market.
A Place of Light
19-01-2009, 19:14
Mozilla and Opera could employ ten million people busting their nuts for 50 years and that wouldn't change the fact that IE has an advantage they could never hope to compete with due to Microsoft's dominance in a separate market.
Success that had to be worked for and not simply handed to them on a plate.
In essence, msoft are being penalised for being so successful.
They're being penalised for exploiting their success in one field in an uncompetitive manner in another field.
If they went completely unchecked, they'd quite happily run amok with their monopoly of the OS market and that wouldn't lead anywhere good for anyone.
APoL is correct. That's what it comes down to in the end. The IE development team in the early days was huge.
Other browsers can and do make inroads. If that wasn't the case, why would MS even bother with IE8? They could just rest on their laurels and wait for the plaudits. It's not like we actually pay anything for any of the major browsers (which certainly wasn't true for WMP - think RealPlayer, Quicktime, etc., though maybe Opera might have briefly been an exception).
And before anyone claims that people could charge for browsers if IE didn't exist, you'd be conveniently ignoring the fact that both Netscape and Mosaic (which came along before IE) were also free.
Monopoly abuse or not, no-one will gain from this bar the EU coffers and a bunch of lawyers.
A Place of Light
19-01-2009, 19:42
They're being penalised for exploiting their success in one field in an uncompetitive manner in another field.
If they went completely unchecked, they'd quite happily run amok with their monopoly of the OS market and that wouldn't lead anywhere good for anyone.
Just like Yahoo/AltaVista could never be toppled by a certain young upstart by the name of Google?
In what way were Yahoo/AV exploiting a position of monopoly in another field that prevented Google having a fair stab at competing in the search engine market?
A Place of Light
19-01-2009, 19:53
In what way were Yahoo/AV exploiting a position of monopoly in another field that prevented Google having a fair stab at competing in the search engine market?
They were dominant, and were beaten by a better product.
The same fate will happen to IE, if better products come to light.
Msoft are being punished for being successful.
If Windows had never existed, you wouldn't even know anyone who owned a PC.
A Place of Light
19-01-2009, 19:55
In what way were Yahoo/AV exploiting a position of monopoly in another field that prevented Google having a fair stab at competing in the search engine market?
There's nothing to stop anyone using a different browser either, just as yahoo had become THE search engine there was nothing stopping anyone using an alternative.
If Msoft had written windows to intentionally make it hard work to use any browser other than their own then I'd say you were bang on the money.
The point is though, is that IE has an unfair advantage over the other options by virtue of it being given, without exception, to every single person in the target market of its competition. Microsoft are exploiting the success of Windows, to lever an advantage for IE that Firefox/Opera can never have as things stand which is inherently anti competitive.
The point is, Firefox et al don't have a straight fight on their hands and the fact Microsoft worked hard to make Windows successful is irrelevant, that shouldn't allow them to exploit it to force dominance in other not directly related markets. Microsoft are using OS dominance to give IE and unfair advantage in the browser market, it's as simple as that.
You can't honestly tell me that IE, Firefox, Opera etc. are on level pegging, can you?
Go back to my example earlier with the 360s and PS3s. If I set you the task of getting people to use a (free) 360 when they all already had a (free) PS3 because i'd just been and given them all one, you'd probably tell me it was a bit of a hard and unfair task wouldn't you?
My point is though, so what? What difference would it actually make to you, I, or average Joe user if the EU fined Microsoft €2bn, or even banned IE outright*?
* This could never happen because the EU would then be handing the competition the very thing they accuse Microsoft of
Well if you'd been reading my posts, rather than angrily frothing at the mouth you'd have noticed I don't think the EU fining them is entirely the best course of action but that what they are saying is in fact true.
I just don't see why people are so desperate to deny it is occurring when it so plainly is.
A Place of Light
19-01-2009, 20:09
The point is though, is that IE has an unfair advantage over the other options by virtue of it being given, without exception, to every single person in the target market of its competition. Microsoft are exploiting the success of Windows, to lever an advantage for IE that Firefox/Opera can never have as things stand which is inherently anti competitive.
The point is, Firefox et al don't have a straight fight on their hands and the fact Microsoft worked hard to make Windows successful is irrelevant, that shouldn't allow them to exploit it to force dominance in other not directly related markets. Microsoft are using OS dominance to give IE and unfair advantage in the browser market, it's as simple as that.
You can't honestly tell me that IE, Firefox, Opera etc. are on level pegging, can you?
Go back to my example earlier with the 360s and PS3s. If I set you the task of getting people to use a (free) 360 when they all already had a (free) PS3 because i'd just been and given them all one, you'd probably tell me it was a bit of a hard and unfair task wouldn't you?
The other argument is that msoft is also trying to increase stability.
By shipping the OS with a mail client, a browser etc it means that a given setup is a known configuration and as such more stable. It also means that the web itself is viewable to more people as even know some sites only work properly with IE.
Well if you'd been reading my posts, rather than angrily frothing at the mouth you'd have noticed I don't think the EU fining them is entirely the best course of action but that what they are saying is in fact true.
I just don't see why people are so desperate to deny it is occurring when it so plainly is.
Fair point about the Mr. Angry impersonation. :o
However, explain how the policy "undermines consumer choice" (their words, not mine). There are two things I need IE for - sites/applications that only work with IE (whose fault it that?) and Windows Update (which goes away with Vista anyway). They certainly haven't undermined my choice, so does that mean I'm not a consumer?
Streeteh
19-01-2009, 20:17
I just don't see why people are so desperate to deny it is occurring when it so plainly is.
I agree it's happening, however what annoys me is the fact that the EU keep stating the act is being taken for 'consumer interests'. Most consumers don't want this, most want an operating system to just work, no decisions needing to be made, no research, just buy it and done.
Even something like a choice between IE, Firefox and safari when buying a computer would scare the crap out of my parents/a worryingly large proportion of my friends
I'll concur with that last point. I preinstalled Firefox on my parents PC and explained why so they didn't even have to do that. Which browser did they choose? IE.
A much fairer system, which I suggested initially, would be similar to that of how Windows 7 offers up the three anti-virus programs with its Beta. A screen pops up after you've installed, shows you the options and you can pick which one you would like. It wouldn't be difficult to make it dynamic etc. and have the five most popular browsers displayed pictorially and then a smaller list of other browsers. New browsers could apply to be added to the system and so on. This is what the EU should do if they're serious about anti-competitiveness. However, I know as well you all do that the EU is just after some money, which is shameful because I think they have a point but they're (ironically almost) exploiting it.
The IE only sites thing is a funny one, as I believe Microsoft threw a fair bit of money at some big name sites and developers to encourage them to use the IE only features a few years back, though I can't back that up quickly and i'm off to uni to revise in a minute so I can't spend ages looking either :p
I'll concur with that last point. I preinstalled Firefox on my parents PC and explained why so they didn't even have to do that. Which browser did they choose? IE.
Which is exactly the issue.
Why did they do that? Because it comes with Windows, it has done for years and Microsoft have used that to their advantage so much that a large range of consumers won't even try anything new.
A Place of Light
19-01-2009, 20:23
The IE only sites thing is a funny one, as I believe Microsoft threw a fair bit of money at some big name sites and developers to encourage them to use the IE only features a few years back, though I can't back that up quickly and i'm off to uni to revise in a minute so I can't spend ages looking either :p
I've seen plenty of small potatoes sites that only really work properly with IE.
Why did they do that? Because it comes with Windows
Given that I preinstalled it, that would be irrelevant in this case. I think it may have been down to other sites and software they want to use. For example, they use an Epson toolbar (written for IE only). Back to my previous point.
None of the sites I have to use IE for have anything to do with MS. Egg banking (ActiveX), and two or three AJAX-based sites which work in Firefox but work better in IE.
Your installation idea sounds fine in theory, but how would you encourage the user to make a sound choice? They can hardly go online to do any research - they haven't even installed the OS yet. I actually have the same problem with the AV choice, and what are the odds that OneCare will be offered in that list?
Well, currently it isn't, only Kaspersky, Norton and AVG are and I think it's purely there because those are the only Win 7 beta compatible AVs about. I doubt the screen will exist in the final release as it happens.
My point about it being bundled was just referring to the here and now but because it has been bundled before. They're used to it now, they know it, it's been embedded and that is entirely down to MS having been including it for so long it's been the first and for most people people the only way they've ever seen of getting online.
Admittedly that kinda ruins my idea, as most people will just choose IE still for exactly that reason but at least it shows people there are options, I suspect a lot of people don't even know they have a choice. Look at the number of people who used to think they couldn't use the internet at all if they didn't use AOLs custom browser when they were doing that for an example of how ignorant people can be regarding such things.
If you want to go all AOL, look at the number of people who thought they were a good idea, period. :p
OneCare will exist for Windows 7. A Microsoft AV product not working on a Microsoft OS? I don't think so. That kills off the AV idea then.
I'm still struggling to see the problem though. Besides the fact MS preinstalled the browser, how does that stop me or anyone else using whatever browser they want? If you want to take that argument, then here's an analogy - why isn't everyone in the UK still using their regional electricity suppliers and British Gas because they were 'just there'? Yes, a lot of people still do, but I don't see the EU threatening them all with anti-competitive lawsuits. Same goes for the telephone - why is BT losing customers to the likes of Talk Talk and Virgin? Where's the anti-competition lawsuit for BT?
OneCare will exist, it was the choice menu you get in Windows 7 currently that I don't think will be present in the final release. I think that is only there because those are the only AV programs that currently work on the beta, as Vista ones don't work properly, and it saves people having to research that themselves for now.
You aren't stopped from choosing but that isn't what the accusation is. It's simply the fact that supplying it to everyone before they've had to make any kind of choice has put any opposition on the back foot as they have to then convince any potential user to change, rather than just choose.
It's sort of like the difference between if you were choosing between a Ford Focus or a Vauxhall Astra. One way you are presented with a choice up front and you can pick one or the other. The other way, analogous to the current situation, you get given a Ford Focus and then Vauxhall have to try and convince you that you should get rid of it and change to their Astra instead, after you've had a few weeks to get used to the Focus.
Your ultimate choice isn't restricted in either case but in one scenario one of the competing parties has been given an advantage.
Edit - BT was a bad example to choose, they have in fact been found of having market dominance in the past and have been told to follow (and complied with) various stipulations because of that :p
I can (finally) see where you're coming from on that one, but that actually reinforces rather than invalidates my own analogies, so where's the anti-competitive suits against BT or British Gas?
Oh, wait, they're EU companies and they don't have the cavernous pockets the EU thinks Microsoft have (not without cause, of course).
PS - I suspect that if Google wanted to, they could use their own muscle to make a very big dent in IE's market share. Who knows - if they ever get Chrome out of beta (bad habit on the part of Google there) they might give it a go. Same goes for Android vs WM, and probably many other things.
so where's the anti-competitive suits against BT or British Gas?
Quick example, from 2003 I think...
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,39118571,00.htm
The UK's wholesale broadband access market is not effectively competitive because of BT's dominance in the sector, Ofcom and Oftel have concluded in a consultation paper that was published on Tuesday.
The telco will continue to be the subject of eight separate regulatory obligations, in an attempt to prevent it abusing its position.
I'm sure there is more about.
Flibster
19-01-2009, 21:51
If MS were to remove notepad, wordpad, IE, paint etc from the OS - they would then raise merry hell about it being useless.
MS would be better off saying from this point on we will not supply the EU with Windows. Only way to stop the money grabbing bastards.
And the BT case is surprisingly accurate, as under the bull**** from Oftel they were not allowed to try and compete and were not allowed to run any of their projects at a loss - even if the projects were under development at the time. :rolleyes:
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.