IE Rivals Oppose Ballot-Screen Solution for EU

[okibrian]

Why don't they just say screw the EU and pull all browsers from the product. They can then sell IE, in CD form, right on the store shelves near the new PCs for $1. You can also make it a check box when ordering on line to add IE with your order at no cost or for a buck. People will still get it for a buck and MS would not have to provide other companies web browser on Microsoft's OS.

 

[rdawise]

[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]Actually the ballot was Microsoft's offer. The EU hasn't forced them to do anything. That's why they're still reviewing the possibility instead of already mandating it.
They're not being punished just for having a monopoly. They are being fined for abusing the monopoly position of their OS to unfairly compete in the browser space. Why do I even bother? 9/10 people who comment in these threads have no clue what they're talking about, that's why the keep saying utterly stupid shit like "FORD DOESN'T HAVE TO ADVERTISE TOYOTAS!" or "MAC BUNDLES SAFARI!" Most people don't even recognize that the issue is about monopolies otherwise they wouldn't make comparisons to complete non-monopolies and pretend their analogy was valid. A lot of people seem to conveniently forget the facts of the case ("EU FORCING MS TO USE A BALLOT!") even though this issue has been covered plenty right here at Tom's. Read the damn article: "ballot proposal!" I get depressed every time these threads come up because of the rampant illiteracy, ignorance, or failures of reading comprehension.[/citation]


I see your point, but again I have to respectfully disagree. First, You are able to remove IE in Windows 7. ANY vendor of an OS has the responsibility to include a browser with their OS, why shouldn't it be their own. Look at Linux. Unbuntu, Red Hat, Open SUSe come with a browser by default, Firefox! How is it not monopolistic of them, yet it is of M$? Just like Linux, you can down another browers in M$ if you want. It's up to the company to advertise and the end user to try. Does Mozilla offer a "ballot" screen in Linux? NO!

We understand the topic fine, we just don't agree with you. If you can't see this as free advertisement then maybe you should read again.

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]rdawise[/nom]I see your point, but again I have to respectfully disagree. First, You are able to remove IE in Windows 7.[/citation]
This complaint was lodged years before Windows 7. In fact I'm willing to bet that this issue is the driving factor behind making IE uninstallable in 7. This issue is basically being considered on the basis of what MS was doing when the complaint was filed, like you get a speeding ticket for going over the speed limit when the cop sees you, not when you see him behind you and start to ease off the gas.


[citation][nom]rdawise[/nom]ANY vendor of an OS has the responsibility to include a browser with their OS, why shouldn't it be their own. Look at Linux. Unbuntu, Red Hat, Open SUSe come with a browser by default, Firefox! How is it not monopolistic of them, yet it is of M$?[/citation]
I though you said you saw my point, when obviously you did not. Where is Red Hat's monopoly on the OS market? Where is Suse's? Where is Firefox's gain from people using Linux, when only 2-4% of people run Linux? Compare that to 90% market share for Windows and (when Opera complained to the EU) over 80% share for IE in the browser space!

Hell, Mozilla isn't even made by the companies that make Red Hat and Suse! WHAT MONOPOLY? How is that anything like "monpolistic" of them? You just made another bone-headed non-monopoly comparison.

[citation][nom]rdawise[/nom]We understand the topic fine...[/citation]
The Hell you do! I just got done explaining why those comparisons are not valid and you made the same mistake.

 

[rdawise]

[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]
I though you said you saw my point, when obviously you did not. Where is Red Hat's monopoly on the OS market? Where is Suse's? Where is Firefox's gain from people using Linux, when only 2-4% of people run Linux? Compare that to 90% market share for Windows and (when Opera complained to the EU) over 80% share for IE in the browser space! Hell, Mozilla isn't even made by the companies that make Red Hat and Suse! WHAT MONOPOLY? How is that anything like "monpolistic" of them? You just made another bone-headed non-monopoly comparison.
[/citation]

You seem to be trying to link two issues into one my misguided, "boneheaded", friend. Which monolopy are you trying to take on? The computer market (not what this ruling was about. They could care less) or the browser market (what the ruling WAS about). You seem to be trying to link the first with the second which is not what the EU is trying to do. If they wanted to go after MS as an OS monopoly they could have (everyone else has). The are only concerned with the browsers. Let's keep you anti-Microsoft focus on topic.

Now back to the point I made (ON TOPIC) you're right Mozilla didn't make those, but the point is that Mozilla is there by default. Arguably, those are the 3 biggest Linux distros, and Mozilla happens to be the default browers, just as IE is the default brower for Windows. Do you really not see any laterism there? I understand anti feelings, but come on logic has to be there somewhere. If fear of a "browser monopoly" is the point of this ruling then force Linux distros to use ballots.

Let's look at Mac. If you're not PC, you're almost by default Mac. Do you think there's a default browser there...you are correct. By your misguided rantings, shouldn't you see a problem with this since if you're a Mac, Safari has a "browser monopoly" on that OS?

[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]
This complaint was lodged years before Windows 7. In fact I'm willing to bet that this issue is the driving factor behind making IE uninstallable in 7. This issue is basically being considered on the basis of what MS was doing when the complaint was filed, like you get a speeding ticket for going over the speed limit when the cop sees you, not when you see him behind you and start to ease off the gas.
[/citation]

For someone who complains about analogies, your's fails terribly here. Think if you got caught driving without issurance (in a state that requires you to have insuance). You get a ticket (MS got fined). You get insurance aka fix the problem (MS made windows 7 where IE was removable), you got to court, then the charges are dropped. That's a better analogy. Since MS, as you claim, made Windows 7 IE 8 removable because of the ruling, didn't they fix the problem you're whining about.

[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]
The Hell you do! I just got done explaining why those comparisons are not valid and you made the same mistake.
[/citation]
Not sure you truly understand what they were fined for. You got a problem with MS having an OS monopoly, talk to the EU to fine them on a seperate charge. Did you read the article? DO you not what they where actually accused of?

One last quote:

[citation][nom]rdawise[/nom]
We understand the topic fine, we just don't agree with you.
[/citation]

 

[rdawise]

Wow can't type...

DO you not what they where actually accused of?

...Should Read...

Do you know what they were actually accused of?

 

[apache_lives]

release an EU only version *without* browser and see what happens - payback for being f*k heads, i know most people cant figure how to simply download a browser on one machine and transfer it to another machine

this only harms people EU

this is like terrorism if you ask me, attacking specific targets

go f*k with Apple (no option of OS/specific hardware, pre-bundled browser) and there iphones or desktops or some other deserving company, and its not as if the money the EU wins goes toward the other companies etc

 

[amnotanoobie]

It could be interesting if Microsoft offered 2 retail versions:
- Win 7 with IE
- Win 7 without IE

There, you already provided the consumer their choice.

 

[brother shrike]

When I buy a car, do they need to give me the option to use a radio from another company?

 

[AndrewMD]

I believe MS should only offer a sripped version of Windows to the EU. This way all aspects of the OS would be dependent on the user. If they need a networking component then they would need to find a company that makes one...

 

[eccentric909]

[citation][nom]amnotanoobie[/nom]It could be interesting if Microsoft offered 2 retail versions:- Win 7 with IE- Win 7 without IEThere, you already provided the consumer their choice.[/citation]

On top of that, make the version without IE more expensive than with.

*partly joking*

 

[back_by_demand]

OK, for all the people who complain that car analogies dont work as its a monopoly, lets use something a bit more technical and already monopolistic.

I buy a Bluray movie, but I dont want to buy a Bluray player and Sony is unfairly abusing its monopoly of Bluray player technology. Why cannot the EU force Sony to make all Bluray movies compatible with HD-DVD players?

I have some PDF documents that have been sent to me, I want to read them but I dont want to install Adobe Reader. Why cant the EU force Adobe to make all PDF documents readable in other programs like Open Office, MS Word, etc, Adobe is abusing its monopoly on reading PDFs.

I want to play Solitaire when bored, but I dont want to play Solitaire that comes with Windows because there is another Solitaire program that is Open Source and has big advertising deals with Google. MS is abusing its monopoly and forcing me to have its Solitaire, can the EU force MS to include other Solitaire programs?

This is exactly what is going on. IE was included with Windows before Opera, Safari, Firefox or Chrome were even thought of. They created a product that copied something they knew was included with Windows, then they worked up big sponsorship deals, then they go to the EU to cry about monopoly. Im sorry but it shouldnt work that way, if the EU thinks this is acceptable and makes MS do what it says then the legal precedent will exist and every single part of Windows that can be copied will have a legal case to be forced into a future copy of Windows. Imagine your installation on 25 Bluray disks taking up 2TB of space because of the millions of bits of free shit software that normally sit on download.com suddenly being shoehorned in at install.

NO NO NO it is WRONG.

Users should have stripped down simple installation with a minimum set of tools, including a browser, if you want all that crap on your system then download it later. Windows Live Tools are the perfect example, a huge range of stuff like Live Mail, Messenger, Movie Maker, etc. They could have integrated them but didn't. IE was left in because you need a browser to get all these things and on general principle unless the other browsers pay MS a fee to include them, then why the hell should they offer them as an alternative?

 

[annymmo]

Google is already building an OS.
As far as this goes, the ballot screen is good enough.
Being able to pick a browser is something I think is good and like the idea.
This attorney certainly seems to overstate things somewhat.

 

[jkflipflop98]

[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]This complaint was lodged years before Windows 7. In fact I'm willing to bet that this issue is the driving factor behind making IE uninstallable in 7. This issue is basically being considered on the basis of what MS was doing when the complaint was filed, like you get a speeding ticket for going over the speed limit when the cop sees you, not when you see him behind you and start to ease off the gas.
I though you said you saw my point, when obviously you did not. Where is Red Hat's monopoly on the OS market? Where is Suse's? Where is Firefox's gain from people using Linux, when only 2-4% of people run Linux? Compare that to 90% market share for Windows and (when Opera complained to the EU) over 80% share for IE in the browser space! Hell, Mozilla isn't even made by the companies that make Red Hat and Suse! WHAT MONOPOLY? How is that anything like "monpolistic" of them? You just made another bone-headed non-monopoly comparison.
The Hell you do! I just got done explaining why those comparisons are not valid and you made the same mistake.[/citation]


You understand nothing.
Windows does NOT hold a monopoly on the operating system market. As it so happens, they have the best, most robust, most compatible operating system on the planet.

Hell, Linux comes in 50+ free flavors and I wouldn't touch that crap with a 10' pole. It can't play games, it sucks at surfing the net, and it's 20-year-old way of getting anything done (command line) makes me want to pull my hair out. But hey, if you

 

[Major7up]

[citation][nom]hixbot[/nom]I don't understand the difference, they are all free products. Does Mozilla lose money when someone picks IE?[/citation] Yes but not in a direct manner. Someone already mentioned that google may kickback something to Mozilla when people use the moz-search page but that is negligible. where they really stand to lose is in donations. A lot of the donors donate based on installed user base and the more users there are, the more donors who donate and in greater amounts.

 

[wildwell]

Will Apple have to offer a ballot for users to choose a search engine on a new Macintosh too!?

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]rdawise[/nom]You seem to be trying to link two issues into one my misguided, "boneheaded", friend. Which monolopy are you trying to take on? The computer market (not what this ruling was about. They could care less) or the browser market (what the ruling WAS about). You seem to be trying to link the first with the second which is not what the EU is trying to do.[/citation]
That's exactly what the EU did. Read it for yourself.
[citation][nom]EU Commission[/nom]The evidence gathered during the investigation leads the Commission to believe that the tying of Internet Explorer with Windows, which makes Internet Explorer available on 90% of the world's PCs, distorts competition on the merits between competing web browsers insofar as it provides Internet Explorer with an artificial distribution advantage which other web browsers are unable to match. The Commission is concerned that through the tying, Microsoft shields Internet Explorer from head to head competition with other browsers which is detrimental to the pace of product innovation and to the quality of products which consumers ultimately obtain. In addition, the Commission is concerned that the ubiquity of Internet Explorer creates artificial incentives for content providers and software developers to design websites or software primarily for Internet Explorer which ultimately risks undermining competition and innovation in the provision of services to consumers.[/citation]
Exactly as I said: The issue the EU has is that Windows abused its dominance in the OS market to give IE an unfair, artificial advantage in the browser market, resulting in disadvantages for competing web browsers and the rest of us as a result of people tailoring websites and services to work with IE.
There's just no point in arguing with you because you don't care about the facts.

[citation][nom]jkflipflop98[/nom]You understand nothing. Windows does NOT hold a monopoly on the operating system market. As it so happens, they have the best, most robust, most compatible operating system on the planet.[/citation]
"Monopoly" doesn't mean "crappy." It means they dominate the market sufficiently that fair competition is difficult or impossible. MS's Windows is entrenched and has 93% of the PC OS market, for consumers and businesses. That's a monopolistic level of market domination.
As I said before, being a monopoly isn't always illegal, but most countries have laws against abusing a monopoly position. That's what the EU found MS guilty of: abusing their monopoly of the desktop OS market to give an unfair advantage to their browser.
You can sit there and praise Windows' good qualities, but that says jack shit about whether or not MS has a monopoly.

 

[zak_mckraken]

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. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.

According to this chart, in september 2009, Windows had 92.77% market share (5.12% Mac and 0,95% Linux). For the average user and large corporations who can't suddenly switch from an OS to the other that already have Windows infrastructures, Linux is hardly a "viable substitute". Thus, Microsoft does have a Monopoly in the OS market. They may do so because they made a good OS, but it's a monopoly nonetheless.

 

[rdawise]

@WheelsofCOnfusion I want you to re-read the quote that you quoted, especially this part:

The evidence gathered during the investigation leads the Commission to believe that the tying of Internet Explorer with Windows, which makes Internet Explorer available on 90% of the world's PCs, distorts competition on the merits between competing web browsers insofar as it provides Internet Explorer with an artificial distribution advantage which other web browsers are unable to match. The Commission is concerned that through the tying, Microsoft shields Internet Explorer from head to head competition with other browsers which is detrimental to the pace of product innovation and to the quality of products which consumers ultimately obtain.

In essence the "problem" is the IE comes with Windows, since Windows is dominant (in others words customers bought it, yet this is so unfair to them [/sarcasm]). Go back to my earlier arguments. Let's say you're not PC. If you are Mac, guess what browser comes with it...Safari. Doesn't that mean in the Mac OS world, competition is unfair against Safari? Let's say you're not Mac, you're Linux. Guess what browser comes with most Linux distros...Firefox! Doesn't mean in the Linux world, Firefox has an unfair advantage?

Here's another funny thing about what you just quoted. MS was just going to create a version with a browser for the EU, but the EU didn't want that. I thought the problem was that the browser was tied in?

Wheels, how in that world do you not see this as a way for browser to gain free advertising? It is not MS's job to promote their software. Should MS also be forced to offer OpenOffice or MS Office? Should they be force to offer Quicktime versus WMP?

Let's look at the second part of your quote:

In addition, the Commission is concerned that the ubiquity of Internet Explorer creates artificial incentives for content providers and software developers to design websites or software primarily for Internet Explorer which ultimately risks undermining competition and innovation in the provision of services to consumers.

Hmmm, so software developers saw what was best selling and decided to use that as a "standard". Well I guess we need to also go after ALL GAME MANUFACTURERS since they code in DirectX instead of OpenGL.

If they would have been so eager to stop the abuses to the customers, they would have not just went afer browers or they would levy the same charges against all OS who package a browser with their (let me say it again THEIR) own software.

These companies where to cheap to spend the money on advertisements so they whined and got free advertisements. Case Closed.

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

As I said, you're not interested in the facts.
You told me I was boneheaded for describing the EU's concern as MS using Windows' popularity to give IE and unfair advantage, and the problems that's had for everybody else from competitors to consumers. Well, I gave you the summary from the commission's own damn mouth stating exactly that, and you are STILL trying to say I was wrong. I tried to explain why comparing a monopoly to a non-monopoly (vis. Apple and Safari), but you cannot grasp the concept. But the arguments are here in the thread for everybody to go back and read, so I'm not going to go into it again.