I'm usually anti-Microsoft, but it's ridiculous that Internet Explorer was a problem to the EU to start with.
Why not unbundle Explorer? Why not unbundle the control panel? Isn't it unfair that Notepad is included? What about Calculator.. surely that's hurting Mathematica? (Before you think I'm going over the top here, IE compared to Firefox is like Calculator vs Mathematica IMHO..) These EU commissions are run by dim-witted politicos who fail to understand any of the realities of technology or business.
It's not ridiculous at all. Microsoft were using their monopoly in desktop operating systems to gain browser market share. This doesn't benefit anyone apart from Microsoft.
I don't think people would have minded as much if IE weren't the worst browser ever created. Add to that the fact that Microsoft abandoned IE for years, leaving everyone high and dry.
Actually, IE being a hideous browser should make it better as it makes it easier for competition to succeed and gives people more reason to investigate and accept alternatives.
Consider if all manufactured cars came with a really crappy "default" radio with horrible sound. The majority of drivers would choose to upgrade the radio to a better one, thus making the marketplace for car radios a healthier, more competitive one. If the cars came with amazing radios built in, hardly anyone would switch.
Yeah as someone living in Europe, I'm not really happy about that. Internet Explorer is an excellent tool to download Chrome or Firefox. It's like a bootstrapping browser. Very useful.
I'm curious if Europe will enforce the same policies on Apple - eg, ensuring that safari does not come pre-installed on snow leopard.
If not, blatant double standards given Apple's market share is increasing.
EDIT - another thought, since access to internet via phones is becoming more widespread, will the EU start imposing the same policies on mobile phone manufacturers...
EDIT #2 - Personally I think if the EU wants to force competition in the browser market, they should ensure that users get a choice of browsers with the pre-installed OS, otherwise with the browser not being included is potentially stumping the growth of internet availability to people who otherwise wouldn't have it.
Just to be clear, I'm not anti-Apple, I just dislike silly rulings that in themselves are anti-competitive, given they only apply to one company.
Anti monopoly rules are usually unfair sounding. Why shouldn't a larger company use its position and money to dominate a new market? The thing is, monopolies can be so damaging to society that treating them in a manner that seems instinctively fair is often bad for us. Like it or not, they are different, and they must be treated differently. It's important to remember that corporations are not people, so if they're treated unfairly the only reason it's a big deal is if society as a whole loses out as a result.
That said, I think the browser market is competitive enough nowadays that MS including a browser really is not that big a deal - OSes include browsers in the same way that cars come with steering wheels. I think this is more about punishing MS for past transgressions than anything else.
Quite simply, the people who know how to use command line tools to install their favourite browsers would be significantly smaller than the number of people who would install firefox as a default browser when IE comes pre-installed.
So in essence, all this does is penalise everyone else except the command-line users, which would be a quite small subset of the total possible userbase. Essentially hurting the web rather than helping it.
Ok, in all seriousness, It's very likely that there will be an icon on the desktop, such as "Set Program Access and Defaults," which will open an application to let you choose from a number of popular browsers, in which people can rate the browsers. That's how the search engine selector works in IE. In most cases, the OEM/vendor will have already chosen a "bootstrap" browser.
From the article:
The company said it would make it easy for PC makers and users to get at and install the web browsing program.
... by bundling its browser software in with its operating system.
I still don't understand why this is wrong. It's their os, let them do whatever they want with it. There are other operating systems around. They don't need to use Windows.
Does the bundling of Command Prompt reduce innovation and competition in the command line client market? Does Windows Explorer reduce innovation and competition in the file browser market?
That could be argued. It's a shades of grey thing. Some things stand out as bundled more than others - especially those that are obviously not part of an OS, for which a market exists etc.
Perhaps in the 90s a Web browser would have not obviously been part of an OS, but nowadays it's one of the simplest, yet most used, applications going and it makes sense to bundle one with any desktop-based OS.
Come to think of it, I can't think of any current desktop-based OS that doesn't come with a Web browser installed by default..
The whole anti-competition lawsuit over this stuff was based on early 2000s assumptions. It's time to forget all about it now and let MS get on with it.
The problem steams from the fact that when Microsoft first starting bundling IE with the Windows, they had a monopoly on the OS market. The used their monopoly to dominate the Browser market and this is what got them into trouble. Apple does not have this problem because they only have a small fraction of the overall market.
Although in this point in time, I think the browser market has become competitive enough that people know of other choices and will make the effort to install them. A most people have come to expect that IE will be on the computer, and would be more annoyed if it did not, unless it came preinstalled with their browser of choice.
The European Comission: "If the Commission were to find that Microsoft had committed an abuse, the Commission has suggested that consumers should be offered a choice of browser, not that Windows should be supplied without a browser at all."
That's quite a different situation than what MS imply with their response.
The article states that Microsoft will make it easy to find and download browsers, which is essentially the same thing as having a choice of browsers.
The EC is probably referring to Windows XP N, which didn't include a media player at all, and sort of left users in the dark as to how to play media files using it. I'm sure MS got some criticism from that from the EU and will not repeat the mistake.
Why does it matter which browser has bigger market share as far as antitrust laws go? Nearly all browsers are free and have been for donkeys years, so does it really matter -business wise- if one company has the majority?
35 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 70.7 ms ] threadIt's a shame that they choose to provide no browsers instead of providing a few
Why not unbundle Explorer? Why not unbundle the control panel? Isn't it unfair that Notepad is included? What about Calculator.. surely that's hurting Mathematica? (Before you think I'm going over the top here, IE compared to Firefox is like Calculator vs Mathematica IMHO..) These EU commissions are run by dim-witted politicos who fail to understand any of the realities of technology or business.
Consider if all manufactured cars came with a really crappy "default" radio with horrible sound. The majority of drivers would choose to upgrade the radio to a better one, thus making the marketplace for car radios a healthier, more competitive one. If the cars came with amazing radios built in, hardly anyone would switch.
If not, blatant double standards given Apple's market share is increasing.
EDIT - another thought, since access to internet via phones is becoming more widespread, will the EU start imposing the same policies on mobile phone manufacturers...
EDIT #2 - Personally I think if the EU wants to force competition in the browser market, they should ensure that users get a choice of browsers with the pre-installed OS, otherwise with the browser not being included is potentially stumping the growth of internet availability to people who otherwise wouldn't have it.
Just to be clear, I'm not anti-Apple, I just dislike silly rulings that in themselves are anti-competitive, given they only apply to one company.
That said, I think the browser market is competitive enough nowadays that MS including a browser really is not that big a deal - OSes include browsers in the same way that cars come with steering wheels. I think this is more about punishing MS for past transgressions than anything else.
So in essence, all this does is penalise everyone else except the command-line users, which would be a quite small subset of the total possible userbase. Essentially hurting the web rather than helping it.
From the article: The company said it would make it easy for PC makers and users to get at and install the web browsing program.
I still don't understand why this is wrong. It's their os, let them do whatever they want with it. There are other operating systems around. They don't need to use Windows.
user of browser knows 'alternative ...';; returns "distinctions packages missing';
Come to think of it, I can't think of any current desktop-based OS that doesn't come with a Web browser installed by default..
The whole anti-competition lawsuit over this stuff was based on early 2000s assumptions. It's time to forget all about it now and let MS get on with it.
Although in this point in time, I think the browser market has become competitive enough that people know of other choices and will make the effort to install them. A most people have come to expect that IE will be on the computer, and would be more annoyed if it did not, unless it came preinstalled with their browser of choice.
The European Comission: "If the Commission were to find that Microsoft had committed an abuse, the Commission has suggested that consumers should be offered a choice of browser, not that Windows should be supplied without a browser at all."
That's quite a different situation than what MS imply with their response.
The EC is probably referring to Windows XP N, which didn't include a media player at all, and sort of left users in the dark as to how to play media files using it. I'm sure MS got some criticism from that from the EU and will not repeat the mistake.