EU to Test MSFT's Browser Ballot Screen Solution

[timaahhh]

I still go to Mc Donald's asking for a whopper, still no dice... Someday the EU will come through for me to.

 

[timberwolf1128]

How about MS just doesn't include any browser with there OS's in Europe?

 

[rdawise]

[citation][nom]VioMeTriX[/nom]so they finally got their head out of their A$$ES and accepted something, which i believe was rediculous to start with. we here dont complain that we get internet explorer, we know we can still download another browser if we choose. and to think europeans call americans stupid.[/citation]
[citation][nom]Jerky_san[/nom]still don't understand why a company must offer its competitions products in its own..[/citation]

I agree wholeheartly. This decision was nothing more than free advertisement for IE competitors.

[citation][nom]trinix[/nom]Internet explorer, unlike wordpad and paint, is a full version of a browser. The browser isn't considered an essential part of the OS and there are other companies who offer alternatives and want to be able to get a fair chance too.With IE pre-installed it offers an unfair advantage for IE. It's irrelevant that MS has done everything in it's power to put IE as the backbone of their entire OS, they choose to do so, it's not a requirement to build an OS. Now these companies are getting a fair chance to compete. And everyone can get the car examples out there and say but I get a BMW chair with my BMW, but it's a different product. The OS and the browser are (or should be) independent.The EU's way to deal with these problems with fees and things isn't the greatest way either and luckily for once it resulted in something good. But they are right and the other browsers asked the EU to try to find a way to solve the problem for them. It's not just the EU who wanted this change.[/citation]

By your definition Apple needs to unpackage it's Safaria browser from their OS. Good Luck with that one. No one needs a car example because you just gave the best one. Apple, another OS, will not have to follow the same ruling. There's your example (you just said it). Your point whole hold so much more weight it MS actually blocked you from downloading another FREE brower, but they don't. Ever seen an ad for FireFox, Opera, or Chrome that wasn't online? If these companies wanted they could have advertise and got word out about their browser. They can be downloaded without restriction.

This decision is bull nothing more.

 

[rdawise]

[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]Show me the monopoly.[/citation]

Ever used a Mac OS? Which Browser did it have? Did it come with it? Did you have a choice?

If you can't see Apple has the same "browser monopoly" as Windows then you are truly "Confused"...

Let's look at the definition of a monopoly (as defined by Wikipedia):
"In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος alone or single + polein / πωλειν, to sell) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it."

By this definition MS is not Monopolistic because they allow you to download any other browser you wish. These other companies just don't want to pay for advertising so now their getting their wish.

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]noob2222[/nom]So basically this all boils down to an advertising gimmick by playing the monoploy card.[/citation]
I would LOVE to see you cite something from the article or other articles on Tom's to support that conclusion. Same goes for anybody else griping about Opera wanting free advertisement.

Its the easiest and most effective way to advertise your product by claiming you can't advertise against a monopoly without help, and force that company to advertise for you.

This tends not to work if the company you're trying to compete with is not, in fact, a monopoly. If they are a monopoly, maybe it is harder to compete with them fairly?

If you think im wrong, Name another os anywher that either a, doesn't inclue a web browser, or b, gives you the same ballot box that MS is forced to do so they can advertise other companies.

NAME ANOTHER OPERATING SYSTEM WITH A MONOPOLY ON THE DESKTOP MARKET
[citation][nom]timberwolf1128[/nom]How about MS just doesn't include any browser with there OS's in Europe?[/citation]
That would cost them more money than any EU fines.

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]But how is Apple not a Monopoly then? [/citation]
Being a "monopoly" doesn't mean "you bundle things together." How is Apple a monopoly when they only have some 10% of the PC market? MS isn't being punished because Windows is on 90% of PCs, they're being punished because they used that monopoly status to give Internet Explorer more marketshare than it would otherwise have ever had. At the time Opera filed the complaint, IE was the leading browser at 85%. Apple never had that advantage, nor Linux, so what they bundle doesn't matter because it hasn't contributed to an unfair advantage for those pieces of software. If you would just read some of the links I posted earlier you would know what the problem is. Are you allergic to knowledge?

Apple is MORE of a Monopoly the Microsoft will ever be since Apple controls the hardware AND software.

But they're competing against other companies like Dell and Microsoft, each of which alone owns much more of the market than Apple does for hardware or software. That's what determines monopolies.

[citation][nom]rdawise[/nom]Ever used a Mac OS? Which Browser did it have? Did it come with it? Did you have a choice? If you can't see Apple has the same "browser monopoly" as Windows then you are truly "Confused"...By this definition MS is not Monopolistic because they allow you to download any other browser you wish.[/citation]
I gave up arguing with you in the other thread. If you would actually care to read the material I've posted you'd know this isn't about being able to install a browser, it's about giving IE an unfair advantage over other browsers because it ships by default on the OS that owns 90% of the desktop market. That is, MS abused it's monopoly in one market (OS) to give its product from another market (browser) an unfair advantage culminating in a similar monopoly, and this has had a detrimental effect on the web.
You're free to disagree with the EU Commission's conclusions, but at least understand what you're objecting to. Until you can demonstrate some level of reading comprehension any discussion with you would just be a monumental waste of time. I'd rather argue with Creationists.

 

[noob2222]

[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]I gave up arguing with you in the other thread. If you would actually care to read the material I've posted you'd know this isn't about being able to install a browser, it's about giving IE an unfair advantage over other browsers because it ships by default on the OS that owns 90% of the desktop market. That is, MS abused it's monopoly in one market (OS) to give its product from another market (browser) an unfair advantage culminating in a similar monopoly, and this has had a detrimental effect on the web. You're free to disagree with the EU Commission's conclusions, but at least understand what you're objecting to. Until you can demonstrate some level of reading comprehension any discussion with you would just be a monumental waste of time. I'd rather argue with Creationists.[/citation]
I other words, yours is the only opinion that matters to you, so be it. But to the open minded, exacly how is it fair to force one company to package thier product entirely different than any other company in existence just because they hold more marke share? Why do they hold more market share? Maybe you should look into the root of the problem instead of just jumping the bandwagon complaining about it trying to fuel the fire without knowing why its even there.

If other companies fail to advertise or offer idiot proof support, thats thier problem. Make an OS that any idiot can use and MS will lose shares, plain and simple. I have tried other OS, linux sucks because you have to try and find resources to be able to use it.

Heck, on my laptop, I installed win7 from vista, couldn't find drivers, clicked on windows update, guess what? Windows found the drivers for my video card, network card, and wireless, problem solved. Give me that with Linux or some other os, sure ill use it.

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]noob2222[/nom]I other words, yours is the only opinion that matters to you, so be it.[/citation]
It's not my opinion, it's the EU Commission's. I haven't actually given my opinion on anything here other than how disappointing it is that people cannot read a few press releases that are only a couple of paragraphs each. My problem is that most of the people I'm responding to don't have any FACTS, and apparently don't care to look for them. This isn't about my opinion, it's about you and the others I've been responding to not caring what the EU's opinion is and inventing your own imaginary "EU opinion" to argue against.
This isn't about how good/bad Windows is, so the rest of your post means nothing. This isn't about Random Non-Monopoly Company bundling Widgets with their Fizzlesticks so all the gripes about other OSes and bundled browsers means nothing. This is about abusing a monopoly position in one market to dominate a separate market according to the EU's Commission, and if you're going to argue that it's anything else you had better be ready to do something other than bitch about MS being "forced to advertise/package/whatever" for their competition, or bitch about other OSes not having to offer browser ballots. Do something that actually has anything to do with the "abuse of monopoly" issue, because that's what this is about until you can prove otherwise.

 

[rocky1234]

Plain & simple If one company is frickin forced to include other companies products or even just give links to those said products then they all should be forced to do it. One company should not be singled out just because they have a bigger market share than the rest. I don't use Apple & I do not ever intend to for the fact that I hate the way they do business & I hate the way they treat their customers one example was with the Iphones they blamed it on the users & would not take the blame for making a faulty device lets face it no matter what the iphone should not have been having that issue no matter how it was used there may be some newer facts on that story but I lost interest when Apple refused to take some of the blame. Now even if Apple & any other company is not forced to do like MS has had to do by the EU maybe they should stand up & offer to do it I'm sure it would make them look a lot better in many consumers eyes & probably sell a lot more of their products. Oh wait scratch that in Apples case I will hate the day when they become big enough that I will have to see their over priced PC's come into my store for repair so I hope they never change their business practices because it just prolongs that day when I will be forced to work on their products longer...lol so go ahead Apple keep your minds closed us PC user's don't mind not seeing you or your product's in our local computer shops.

 

[buwish]

Personally, the EU has over reacted to this deal, much like the government here did a few years back. It ended up being a waste of time.

 

[noob2222]

Do something that actually has anything to do with the "abuse of monopoly" issue, because that's what this is about until you can prove otherwise.

I tried but you can't see past your own theories. Yes this is about MS abusing their monopolistic position as you see it. However, the door swings both ways.

Prove to me that this isn't other companies abusing the monopoly antitrust to force Microsoft to sell thier product for them (free advertising from the biggest seller in the pc market). If you don't think this is reasonable, look at the patent trolls that are buying patents that are used in everyday software and suing for it 10+ years after it was patented (MMO patent). Its the same concept.

 

[TemjinGold]

Despite complaints from Microsoft's competitors it looks like the European Union is all but ready to approve the Redmond-based company's ballot screen proposal.

Wait, why are the competitors still complaining about the ballot system?

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]TemjinGold[/nom]Wait, why are the competitors still complaining about the ballot system?[/citation]
There have been rumblings from Mozilla employees and more officially complaints from Red Hat and others about various things they see as wrong with the ballot, either in concept or in execution. Tom's had some news about it, these two posts. Some of Mozilla's complaints were addressed in the intervening months and I haven't heard from the group that includes Red Hat if they still feel the presentation in the ballot is bad.

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]noob2222[/nom]I tried but you can't see past your own theories. Yes this is about MS abusing their monopolistic position as you see it. However, the door swings both ways.Prove to me that this isn't other companies abusing the monopoly antitrust to force Microsoft to sell thier product for them (free advertising from the biggest seller in the pc market).[/citation]
As I said before, you haven't given me any reason to think that this is actually the case. This is kind of like Glenn Beck telling a Muslim congressman to "prove that to me that you are not working with our enemies..." Unless you have some actual evidence or pertinent facts beyond, "Well this sure looks to me like they're using abusing the law for free advertising!" then I don't really have anything to argue against except your opinion. But I'm not interested in arguing against irrational opinions, I'm interested in discussing viewpoints based on facts.

If you don't think this is reasonable, look at the patent trolls that are buying patents that are used in everyday software and suing for it 10+ years after it was patented (MMO patent). Its the same concept.

How is that even remotely the same concept? That's a complete non-sequitur, unless you can explain it better.

 

[noob2222]

Here is the reason you will NEVER see any proof. If someone were to try and point out that the competitors against a monopoly were abusing the system, you would have 1% support from that monopoly, 89% who don't care one way or the other, and 10% completely against anything you say simply because they hate the monopoly company and anyone trying to help them.

Look at it this way, some article is published in favor of the monopoly, 1% of people reading it post that they agree, 10% post they disagree, 89% don't post at all, so you get 1 in 10 in favor of your article. Doesn't lead to very many articles being published when your only backed by 10%. But publish an article against the monopoly, your backed 90%.

Tried to refrence the patent trolls who are abusing the patent system to make a buck, same as these browser companies abusing the monopoly system to make a buck.

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]noob2222[/nom]Here is the reason you will NEVER see any proof.
...
Doesn't lead to very many articles being published when your only backed by 10%. But publish an article against the monopoly, your backed 90%.[/citation]
So you're excusing your lack of evidence by alleging a widespread media collusion to cover it up for the sake of gaining readership? Isn't that one of the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory? That also only works if you're considering publications as determined by single articles rather than the fact that they're a collection of articles. Most people don't come to a website, buy a newspaper, or pick up a magazine just for one article published on one day.
Besides, posting something in FAVOR of a monopoly is actually pretty good at stirring controversy and getting attention. See Tuan's editorial pleading with the EU to leave Britne.. er, Microsoft alone. That editorial got almost ten times as many comments as these later news posts have.

So not only is your lack of evidence NOT supported by your conspiracy theory, the theory itself is groundless and contradicted by experience. You can just say "I don't have any proof, that's the way I see things" and be honest.

Tried to refrence the patent trolls who are abusing the patent system to make a buck, same as these browser companies abusing the monopoly system to make a buck.

That's about where I thought you were going, but it's still wrong. Patent trolls don't actually do anything with their patents (in many cases they didn't even originate them, merely buying the patent later), whereas all these other browser makers have been putting out good browsers for years and years. Patent trolls usually have patents of questionable validity at all (s'why they overwhelmingly prefer the East Texas venue, the judges there are particularly willing to overlook the flaws of the patent), whereas the EU actually has a case that A) Windows does have an OS monopoly, and B) This OS monopoly was used to give IE an artificial monopoly among browsers. Since doing B violates the EU's anti-monopoly regulations, that's a pretty good reason to fine them; just as getting caught speeding is a good reason to get a speeding ticket. MS is seeking to avoid the heavy fines by offering a ballot screen, allowing IE to be uninstalled from Windows and not having it set up by default, and also by disclosing APIs so other browsers can render those infamous "IE only" pages that still haunt the internet.
Patent trolls, in other words, do nothing but litigate. Opera, Mozilla, Apple, and Google have all done enormous work to offer great browsers. They still have to compete with the entrenched position of IE (though less so today than in 2007), which has an artificial advantage in coming installed and set up by default on 90% of desktops sold.

Your patent troll analogy basically has nothing to do with this case.

 

[rdawise]

[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]
NAME ANOTHER OPERATING SYSTEM WITH A MONOPOLY ON THE DESKTOP MARKET
[/citation]
As I have pointed out, to be considered "monopolistic" MS would not only have to control the market, but limit how others access it. MS does not restrict you from keeping IE as your default browser. You are free to download any other browser you wish. The other companies failed to advertise their product and now want free advertisements. This why I actually didn't have too much of a problem when the EU ruled against MS bundling WMP (yes I read the articles, but I will address that more later). Here MS actually blocked Sun from access part of the OS. That was monopolistic and an abuse of market position. If MS actually blocked you from downloading another browser, that would be abuse.

[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]
Being a "monopoly" doesn't mean "you bundle things together." How is Apple a monopoly when they only have some 10% of the PC market? MS isn't being punished because Windows is on 90% of PCs, they're being punished because they used that monopoly status to give Internet Explorer more marketshare than it would otherwise have ever had. At the time Opera filed the complaint, IE was the leading browser at 85%. Apple never had that advantage, nor Linux, so what they bundle doesn't matter because it hasn't contributed to an unfair advantage for those pieces of software.
[/citation]
I'm not sure you thought this through before posting it. So you're saying Apple is not a monopoly on the PC market. Fair enough, but Apple IS a monopoly on the Mac market. If you want to go Mac, there's one show in town...Apple (just like MS has Windows). Truly Linux is the only OS they isn't monopolistic in this respect because you can get different flavours from different vendors. Anyway back to Apple, again guess what browser comes default to Apple...Safari! Does that mean Safari has an unfair share on the Mac market (since Firefox, Opera, and Chrome (dev) can be downloaded as well)? If these companies want to access that Mac market on fair grounds they cannot because Safari is default (by your arguements). Why not extend this ruling to all OS?


[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]
If you would just read some of the links I posted earlier you would know what the problem is. Are you allergic to knowledge? But they're competing against other companies like Dell and Microsoft, each of which alone owns much more of the market than Apple does for hardware or software. That's what determines monopolies.
I gave up arguing with you in the other thread. If you would actually care to read the material I've posted you'd know this isn't about being able to install a browser, it's about giving IE an unfair advantage over other browsers because it ships by default on the OS that owns 90% of the desktop market. That is, MS abused it's monopoly in one market (OS) to give its product from another market (browser) an unfair advantage culminating in a similar monopoly, and this has had a detrimental effect on the web. You're free to disagree with the EU Commission's conclusions, but at least understand what you're objecting to. Until you can demonstrate some level of reading comprehension any discussion with you would just be a monumental waste of time. I'd rather argue with Creationists.[/citation]

LOL, for someone with an obvious hatred for logic you should berade other users for "lack of comprehension". I have read your articles and understand the ruling that's why i don't have a problem when the EU ruled against WMP (as stated earlier). What you fail to see (or maybe don't want to see) is how this ruling is just free marketing for companies who don't want to advertise. MS didn't lock them out so they weren't abusing their position like they did with WMP.

Why did the EU stop at browsers? Why not go after Office sine Open Office is an alternative? Why not go after Paint since there's alternatives to that? Movie Maker? Windows Messenger? Notepad? Calculator? Since all these programs come with Windows aren't they too "abusing the customer" by not offering ballots?

How long have you had a problem with logic Wheels? I would go further, but this sums it up best:

[citation][nom]noob2222[/nom]In other words, yours is the only opinion that matters to you, so be it. But to the open minded, exacly how is it fair to force one company to package thier product entirely different than any other company in existence just because they hold more market share? Why do they hold more market share? Maybe you should look into the root of the problem instead of just jumping the bandwagon complaining about it trying to fuel the fire without knowing why its even there.If other companies fail to advertise or offer idiot proof support, thats thier problem. [/citation]

Somebody hand noob2222 an award!

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]rdawise[/nom] Why did the EU stop at browsers? Why not go after Office sine Open Office is an alternative?[/citation]
This line adequately sums up the fact that you just don't get it. Office doesn't come installed by default with Windows, idiot. Despite every effort I've made to explain this simply you just cannot comprehend the issue. As I said, arguing with you is useless.

 

[rdawise]

[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]This line adequately sums up the fact that you just don't get it. Office doesn't come installed by default with Windows, idiot. Despite every effort I've made to explain this simply you just cannot comprehend the issue. As I said, arguing with you is useless.[/citation]

Fair enough, I concede Office doesn't come with Windows (though you've said in earlier arguements the bundling of software isn't the problem, but MS's market position.)

But wait Wheels, what about the other software that I mentioned that is packaged with Windows. No comment about this. Gasp, silence from the the all knowing WheelsofConfusion...

As I said, arguing with you is useless.

Should read

As I said, arguing with you is useless because I have no logical answer to your points.

There! Fixed it for ya!